The Ego Has Landed: Why Trump Damaged Himself Tonight

Apologies. I have no idea why I indulged myself to write so long to make such a simple point. Long story short: You can't tell people they've been flat wrong about everything for 17 years, without giving the slightest reason why they should change their entire scheme of thinking, and expect them to support you.

This was a brief line in the podcast (which we'll post tomorrow) which I expanded, for reasons I can now no longer guess, into a 1500 word exegesis on the obvious.

Just skip to the brief update.

...

The "ego" in the headline doesn't actually refer to Trump's ego, for once. Rather, it refers to the voters' egos.

I think Trump hurt himself badly tonight, enough to knock him out of his first-place standing in most states. Oh he won't completely disappear -- but 2nd Place Trump is not the same thing as Frontrunner Trump.

Trump damaged himself with his claim that Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Not botched the intelligence, not read too much into thin intelligence.

Most Republicans, I think, would agree that that.

No, Trump claimed that Bush deliberately lied us into war.

First, this is alarming because it once again demonstrates that Trump has a conspiratorial mind. It's not enough for the conspiracist to say someone was wrong -- no, they have unrealistically black/white minds, and if you made a bad call, you must have lied.

That conspiracism was always present in his claims about Obama's birth certificate. But that bit of fantasy was about Obama, someone the average Republican voter isn't exactly eager to man the battlements for.

This corker -- this Al Gore roar of quote -- is about George W. Bush, someone still looked upon with affection by most of the party.

Which brings us to the second problem.

If Donald Trump is right, and George W. Bush deliberately schemed with his neo-con advisers to "lie" us into a phony war with Iraq, what does that say about the average Republican voter who supported Bush from 1999, voted for him, defended him through the recount, cried with him on 9/11, agreed with him on Iraq, defended him from ceaseless liberal attacks on him during the war, defended him from Obama's never-expiring "Blame Bush" blame-shifting, etc.?

If Trump is right, then we're not just wrong to have supported him. If Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now.

Everyone has an ego. Even Jeb Bush.

The first duty of every ego is to protect itself from attack.

People want to think well of themselves, and they wish to vote in a way that makes them think well of themselves. It's a critical goal in every campaign to convince the public that voting for this candidate is the Smart, Virtuous, Good thing to do, because people will vote in a way that enables them to luxuriate their egos.

That's how Barack Obama got elected. The media convinced people that they became smart and virtuous and good just by voting for this layabout pinko incompetent.

A good leader will challenge people, and that sometimes requires posing a threat to their egos. By telling someone they are wrong-- or at least aren't thinking about things quite straight --one is attacking their ego.

But someone adroit in persuasion understands when he is in fact attacking the core of someone's sense of self-worth, and does so cautiously, deploying all the reason and tactfulness he can marshal into the effort.

He attacks that person's ego to the smallest extent compatible with his goal (changing the person's mind), and offers him good reasons to change his mind.

He thus offers a lateral move, if you will, from one state of self-valuation to another. You give up on this one way of thinking, which would usually cause some psychic strain to the ego, but, on the other hand, you have been convinced of the rectitude of this other way of thinking. By moving to that new way of thinking, you gain a level of self-worth, so you're net even on the deal. (You might even gain some sense of self-worth for having been smart enough to recognize a good argument and having been openminded enough to consider it.)

It is very unpersuasive, on the other hand, to offer someone a flat contradiction of something they've long believed while offering no reason at all to accept a new replacement belief, except the assertion of it.

Abandoning the old position is damaging to one's sense of self-worth -- how could I have gotten it wrong for so long? But no easy glide-path to the new way of thinking is offered.

You sort of have to just knuckle under someone's flat assertion -- and subordinating oneself to another's claims, with no good reasons for such subordination offered, is even more hostile to the ego than being wrong.

Who wants to be someone else's Thought Bitch?

This is a long way of saying Trump specifically and completely contradicted a belief that 75-80% of Republicans have about Bush -- that he was a fundamentally decent man, perhaps overwhelmed by a very difficult period, who made an erroneous decision based on incomplete information -- and instead offered a new belief, that Bush deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD's, a position that 75-80% of Republicans have long not only rejected but have been actively hostile towards.

With no better reason to adopt this new claim other than that Donald Trump said it.

I doubt very much people will be willing to make this leap with Trump. Gathering political support is all about getting a buy-in of belief at a price that people are willing to pay (usually, a low price-- that's why politicians strain to parrot back to you things you already believe).

I think Trump, who has been a past-master at getting people to buy-in to a very low-cost premise -- "Let's Make America Great Again" -- just made a very high cost premise central to buying into him.

And I think for that reason that many people will be taking a second look at Trump -- and not in a good "second look" way. I think they'll be evaluating things they previously gave him passes on -- donations to Hilary, Reid, Pelosi, etc.; support for partial birth abortion; support for single-peer health care-- and re-evaluate those facts while keeping in mind Trump's big new premise that Republicans supported, voted for, defended, and sustained an actual war criminal who made war on a country he knew to be innocent of the claim he dishonestly profferred against it, for who knows what sinister gain.

We'll see if he tries walking this one back, and to what extent he's successful.

If it is now a part of the agenda that we actually have to buy into all the claims Gore, Pelosi, Obama, etc. made for years, I think this new agenda is going to turn out to be too highly priced for most Republican voters.

And Don't Even Get Me Started on Tribal Signaling. I was just telling someone that every campaign boils down to two four word claims:

I'M
ON
YOUR
SIDE

HE'S
NOT
LIKE
US

Dress it up however you like, the subconscious messaging in every election is just that.

I'm on Your side.

He's not like Us.

With just a few poorly chosen angry words, Trump declared a lot of allegiance to the enemy tribe, and essentially said "I'm not like you."

Posted by: Ace at 01:53 AM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 Prep work for more shit sandwiches, I suppose.

Posted by: Monty James at February 14, 2016 01:56 AM (uLTvi)

2 I think you're reading too much into one moment in a Valentine's Saturday night debate.

I, for one, am pissed as hell that I got rolled into a fury by my "betters" in the administration and NRO type geniuses and supported a baseless war that did nothing to forward our national interests and got quite a few people killed needlessly.

If Trump feels Bush lied and I feel Bush was wrong and both land on the same square of the war being unnecessary, that's a degree of difference, not a massive schism. I can disagree in degrees with a candidate I support.

Rubio is for open borders and Cruz is a sleazy politico. Those are not degrees different from where I am. Those are massive schisms.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:01 AM (c8hIP)

3 Well this is quiet...

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 02:01 AM (NUqwG)

4 second?

Posted by: owlpellets at February 14, 2016 02:01 AM (YvTdG)

5 And where the F is everyone?

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:02 AM (c8hIP)

6 But does it gain him more Lefties? Tradeoff?

I suppose the far Leftists still go for Sanders, but he may gain in Defties what he loses on the Right?

Posted by: prewittlassie at February 14, 2016 02:03 AM (WjuJ3)

7 Eh. You could be right. But I don't think you are. I hate George Bush, and while I don't think he lied, I hate him enough to not care that Trump thinks he did. Also, this isn't really new. I've heard Trump say this before. It's baked into the cake. My prediction:

Trump isn't damaged.
Trump wins SC.
Trump wins nomination.

One man's opinion. Could be wrong. We shall see.

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at February 14, 2016 02:04 AM (RPsRI)

8 Well this is up after the ONT so everyone's asleep.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at February 14, 2016 02:05 AM (laMCB)

9 "I think you're reading too much into one moment in a Valentine's Saturday night debate."

That's what Rubio fans said.

And this wasn't one moment. It was a whole sequence, capped off by Obama^H^H^H^H^HTrump actually blaming Bush for 9/11.

Maybe you just read about it from social media... Watch the video. It's much worse than the description. Not just what he's saying but the vehemence with which he advances it... Unbelievably bad.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:06 AM (PMBgt)

10 I hope you are right, but I dont think that his supporters care about this. If they have followed him through partial birth abortion, haunting lil old ladies from their homes, doling out cash to the worst democrat scum, saying about rapefugees that we gotta takem in... I just cant see them being shocked by unfair attacks against a president who is considered to be a failure these days.

I think some of the Trump folks may even see supporting him as a form of repentance for having supported Bush.

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 14, 2016 02:07 AM (SspTX)

11 I watched it live.

He didn't blame Bush for 9/11. He said Bush was President for 9/11 and, therefore, this weird claim that he kept us safe is bullshit. Last I check, he is correct, and Bush was President on 9/11.

Jeb! told me that it's uncouth to blame a predecessor for things that happen during a presidency, so who was at the helm on 9/11?

It's not blame. It's reality. We were not safe on that day.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:09 AM (c8hIP)

12 They were just booing because he was getting relentless on Jeb. It gave
them a sad and they were mad that they got sad. Establishment
Republicans hate people who fight back and bully weak candidates. They
think they are the ones who will convince the weak candidates to drop
out. They don't like the idea of a weak candidate being publicly
humiliated. The Establishment also don't realize what happens outside of
Washington, and it is things like this. Public humiliations by the boss
or a competitor for poor performance. People don't get fired in
Washington for failing. People who graduate from Ivy League schools
don't get called out in front of their inferiors. They are not really
responding to Trump so much as his culture. They don't like being held
responsible. They want to handle their own exits gracefully without any
pressure.

Posted by: But so what at February 14, 2016 02:09 AM (7wyDO)

13 Nayden Broad-- you're speaking of the stalwarts.

As a sometime Trump supporter myself, I think I can say that there are Trump supporters who have not fully bought in, and for whom stuff like this is a no-go zone.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:10 AM (dciA+)

14 SOME supporters won't care. The ones who've swallowed the whole schlong on social media, and the chan/reddit kids who are actually too young to remember the knock-down Bush political battles, particularly the 2004 election.

But as visible as this set is on Twitter, they give you Ron Paul's vote share. Not half the primary electorate. And the rest will have the same FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE reaction I (formerly Trump-curious) did.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:10 AM (PMBgt)

15 Were we safe on 9/11?

Was the dude headed out of the WTC head first with his arms at his sides safe?

Who was President then? Did he keep the dude headed out of the WTC head first safe?

Bush is not to blame for 9/11. The terrorists are. But this odd contention that he kept us safe is bullshit, and Trump is right to call that out. It's false.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:13 AM (c8hIP)

16 >If it is now a part of the agenda that we actually have to buy into all the claims Gore, Pelosi, Obama, etc. made for years, I think this new agenda is going to turn out to be too highly priced for most Republican voters.

Sorry, nice narrative. It won't fly.

Because the alternative has already been played by the establishment:

Are you opposed to illegal immigration? Well, you're a racist. You're a racist, scared of change, scared of for'ners and a bit of a hick besides.

It's not conservatives who pinned their egos on believing W was a decent man who fought a reasonable war. It's pundits. And as we've already seen, no one gives a shit about pundits anymore.

Nor are they particularly concerned with W's legacy. Trump is saying W misled everyone about the war. In hindsight, with the disaster it turned into, that's going to be a hell of a lot easier to swallow than 'Yes, well, okay, umm.. no it was a bad idea but oh it was so well-intended!'

The pundits will be outraged that they were made fools out of. Regular republicans will just be mad at the pundits for lying on behalf of the establishment.

Posted by: Crude at February 14, 2016 02:15 AM (/IrCS)

17 I used to defend Bush once upon a time. While I believe he went to war with Iraq with good intentions, his fuckups from that point on is what gave us Obama. I think there's also a level of Bush fatigue factor that will result in a lot of the voters not being too off put by what Trump said and simply won't give a shit. Honestly, over the years I went from avidly supporting Bush to being meh, to now wishing all the Bushes would just fucking disappear.

However, what does bother me is that Trump can't seem to show proper restraint and just flew off the handle when it was completely unnecessary. Advancing a conspiracy in the absence of evidence just to let the shit fly was really disturbing to watch. And the level of vehemence in which he said it makes me suspect he really believes it too. Scary.

I think Cruz won the night, but all the naysayers saying he's unelectable has me just as equally depressed. What an utterly fucking horrible day.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:16 AM (qHgBB)

18 "Rubio is for open borders and Cruz is a sleazy politico. Those are not degrees different from where I am. Those are massive schisms."

I have to ask this of a Trump supporter. If Cruz is a sleazy politico, then trump is a _________ businessman? You fill in the blank. From my perspective, Trump is a downright dirt bag businessman. Is that not a massive schism from where you are, or do you count yourself in that same camp?

I cannot comprehend how someone who despises sleazy politicians can so easily support a guy who has spent his entire life right in the middle of the sleaze, creating the sleaze, and largely enjoying life in the sleaze.

Posted by: Rich at February 14, 2016 02:17 AM (MIdlN)

19 I think you got it totally wrong ace.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 14, 2016 02:18 AM (OvUux)

20 The Iraq was was 13 years ago. A 25 year old voter was 12 then. We remember it, but to most people it's just the disaster it turned out to be, not all the arguments that made it seem rational and just at the time.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:18 AM (c8hIP)

21 Yeah, I really can't take seriously any claim that George Bush made us safe. He gave us a Democrat Congress with his idiotic war, and that sure as shit didn't make us safe.

Honestly, I can't stand George Bush. And I'm tired of pricks like Jeb trying to pressure/guilt me into feeling protective over him. And fucking McCain! Jeb actually brought up Trump's insult to McCain again! Like, who gives a fuck?! And that was worse than anything he said about George Bush tonight. But I didn't care. Why? Because fuck John McCain. That's why.

Is there anyone who was with Trump, but now isn't with Trump because of this?

Maybe. My predictions have been known to be wrong. But I don't see it.

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at February 14, 2016 02:19 AM (RPsRI)

22 He didn't blame Bush for 9/11. He said Bush was President for 9/11 and, therefore, this weird claim that he kept us safe is bullshit. Last I check, he is correct, and Bush was President on 9/11.
************************

That wasn't the issue though, the issue was that Trump claimed Bush flat out LIED about WMDs to get us into a war with Iraq. That's way out there, and it gives some uncomfortable insight into Trump's state of mind.

Still better than the communist or the hag though.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:19 AM (qHgBB)

23 >>The Iraq was was 13 years ago. A 25 year old voter was 12 then. We remember it, but to most people it's just the disaster it turned out to be, not all the arguments that made it seem rational and just at the time.

lot of people are not lucky enough to be so young.

you're saying "There are some people for whom this might make sense." fine. There are many people for whom it makes no sense at all.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:19 AM (dciA+)

24 GWB was wrong about most everything. That is completely independent of the left losing their fucking minds after Gore vs.

GWB was a 8 year disaster.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 14, 2016 02:20 AM (OvUux)

25 I have a feeling that it will be less socially comfortable hanging out with other rightists with your "Make America Great Again" hat on when they might actually want to punch you over this type of shit. This wasn't a problem for him before.

(Not saying people should punch Trump supporters. I'm saying I felt a bit like punching Trump when he was cranking himself off over 9/11 and Iraq. This animosity will be pretty easy to pick up off me from his supporters.)

Posted by: basicbv at February 14, 2016 02:20 AM (MY8Qe)

26 I dunno. Some of the responses in the thread sort of proves what some have been saying for a while. Some Trump supporters will stick with the guy literally no matter what he does. If the guy came out tomorrow and said he was in favor of letting every Mexican in that wanted in, a lot of you guys would just say "Oh well, he's just doing it to get elected, playing everyone for fools!"

Posted by: Rich at February 14, 2016 02:20 AM (MIdlN)

27 And, by the way...

>If Trump is right, then we're not just wrong to have supported him. If Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now.

Conservatives who put their faith in Bush were, as a matter of fact, mistaken. Not because he was an actual 'Hitler-Level monster', but because he was a goddamn fool who made terrible choices across the board. He blew billions on his 'compassionate conservatism', he got us mired in an inane war, and more.

Most people have made peace with the fact that W sorta sucked. He was a 'decent man' in a general sense, but he was a fuckup. And Trump is putting to rest this idea that this fuckup was some kind of hero conservatives should respect.

Posted by: Crude at February 14, 2016 02:21 AM (/IrCS)

28 >>>However, what does bother me is that Trump can't seem to show proper restraint and just flew off the handle when it was completely unnecessary. Advancing a conspiracy in the absence of evidence just to let the shit fly was really disturbing to watch.

agreed. As drew and I say in the podcast: he flew off the handle to attack *JEB*, who is not a serious threat.

Jeb!

ALl this to yell at fourth place Jeb.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:21 AM (dciA+)

29 Rich #18 -

Trump doesn't pretend he's different than what he is. Cruz is a sleazy politician who pretends to be a holy man.

Plus, you'll have a hard time finding a sleazy deal on Trump's end, unless you believe Cruz's lie about Trump bulldozing "that poor woman's" house, which he didn't. For the most part, Trump's business dealings have been scandal free. And, unlike Rev. Cruz, he has done a shit ton in charity.

Plus, I give a whole lot more latitude to businessmen in the private sector than I do politicians at the public teat. But that's just me.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:21 AM (c8hIP)

30 Jeb needs to be yelled at.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 14, 2016 02:22 AM (OvUux)

31 So Bush should have known that the next President would so dependent on an Iranian communist advisor that he would give away Iraq?

How exactly was he supposed to know that?

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:22 AM (AoK0a)

32 >>>Is there anyone who was with Trump, but now isn't with Trump because of this?

in case you haven't noticed, I've been supportive of trump as my #2 (and sometimes, secretly, my #1).

So, yeah.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:22 AM (dciA+)

33 Liar, liar, liar. Liar. LIAR!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Trump in the form of Power Baboon at February 14, 2016 02:22 AM (UnJ7w)

34 "most people"

Most primary voters are way older than 25. Waaay older. Most primary voters have voted in primaries before.

"Some Trump supporters will stick with the guy literally no matter what he does."

That's right. But that's the Ron Paul segment.

If there were no other candidate for angry voters, he'd still have a big macro advantage. But there is.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:23 AM (PMBgt)

35 29 Cruz is a sleazy politician who pretends to be a holy man.

Fucking retarded shit establishment bs thrown out upon witnessing.

GTFO with this crap.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 14, 2016 02:23 AM (OvUux)

36 From my perspective, Trump is a downright dirt bag businessman. Is that not a massive schism from where you are, or do you count yourself in that same camp?
************************

The difference is politicians are beholden to special interests and donors. Trump has no such allegiance, which is good and bad (bad in that him doing whatever the fuck he wants could bode ill if it doesn't align with the voters who support him).

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:23 AM (qHgBB)

37 "Most people have made peace with the fact that W sorta sucked."

He has a 87% approval rating in South Carolina. (Or is that the South Car GOP? Same thing, in this case.)

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:24 AM (PMBgt)

38 Sorry, but nope.

Much of America wants a strongman.

All hail Trump.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:24 AM (21hN3)

39 And Trump is putting to rest this idea that this fuckup was some kind of hero conservatives should respect.
Posted by: Crude at February 14, 2016 02:21 AM (/IrCS)

Oh! Gee! Thanks for pointing out that I was mistaken! I'm all in for Trump now! Not.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 02:26 AM (UnJ7w)

40 "So Bush should have known that the next President would so dependent on an Iranian communist advisor that he would give away Iraq?"

The funny thing is that it took Kasich to make that point. John F'in Kasich. If that doesn't show Rubio and Jeb's failure...

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:26 AM (PMBgt)

41 a man who loses his shit over a snit with a minor irritant in 4th place isn't terribly strong.

I think a strongman is a guy who keeps his shit together at all times.

I won't say who but his name rhymes with Bed Brews.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:26 AM (dciA+)

42 Oh Ace, you've got the Trumpkins all riled up. They can't stand anyone casting aspersions on their god.

On second thought, now they'll be in here frothing all night long. You've ruined their night's sleep.

Well done.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 14, 2016 02:26 AM (N8hFs)

43 You're probably right that will ding Trump in the polls. My guess is it won't bump him out of frontrunner status.

It will give him a harder time if the GOPe manages to get their scattered field to winnow, or settles on Cruz as the logical man to unseat Trump.

Survey of one, I'm beyond done defending George Bush. Could not care less.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at February 14, 2016 02:27 AM (XiFxt)

44 Ace #23 -

=
lot of people are not lucky enough to be so young.

you're saying "There are some people for whom this might make sense." fine. There are many people for whom it makes no sense at all.
==
You have to admit that, as convincing as all the arguments to go into Iraq were, and they were, and I was completely convinced and very supportive, they were wrong.

And, absent the WMD, all the other arguments to go into Iraq weren't very conservative at all. Saddam could do nothing at all to us.

Our entire argument absent the WMD was that Saddam was in violation of the UN, which we, as conservatives, hate. Arguing that it's on the USA to go in an enforce international law on a country that poses no threat to us is, in retrospect, not very conservative.

I, for one, feel like a fool for supporting the Iraq was as heavily as I did. I have a feeling that all this Bush support 13 years later is just people not being able to handle feeling equally foolish.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:27 AM (c8hIP)

45 by the way guys:

http://mynutritionninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/soar-with-eagles-1024x683.jpg

read it, learn it, live it.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:27 AM (dciA+)

46 . If the guy came out tomorrow and said he was in favor of letting every Mexican in that wanted in,
********************

Give me a fucking break, if he did that my support would evaporate instantly and I'd pull the lever for SMOD.

**************
Fucking retarded shit establishment bs thrown out upon witnessing.
************

I really do not understand this constant assertion that Cruz is establishment. He's the only one other than Trump that is anti-establishent enough to garner my vote.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:28 AM (qHgBB)

47 //in case you haven't noticed, I've been supportive of trump as my #2 (and sometimes, secretly, my #1).

So, yeah.//

When was he secretly your #1? I've been pretty convinced he's been your #2 for, well, a while. Anyway, if he's your #2, in what since are you with him?

But fine, who has Trump as their #1 and is now placing him as, say, their #2. Or #3. Or whatever.

Also, if he's no longer your #2, what is he?

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at February 14, 2016 02:28 AM (RPsRI)

48 I just don't see where else the Trumpkins go?

Cruz? Rubio? Jeb? Really?!

It's a party divided. Embrace the chaos!

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:28 AM (21hN3)

49 Looks like the GOldman Sachs crowd has their arms securely hugged around their own torsos.

Sabo's guy!@ Right?

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 14, 2016 02:29 AM (OvUux)

50 Jeb: I couldn't care less what Donald Trump says about me. [wails internally]

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 14, 2016 02:29 AM (VdICR)

51 "You have to admit that, as convincing as all the arguments to go into Iraq were, and they were, and I was completely convinced and very supportive, they were wrong. "

No, actually, you don't. Now to fight the war the way we did? Another story.

"Saddam could do nothing at all to us."

The same nothing Iran can do to us now. Don't worry! Be happy!

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:29 AM (PMBgt)

52 48 I just don't see where else the Trumpkins go?

Home.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (VdICR)

53 "the GOldman Sachs crowd"

The funny thing is that Trumpturfers think this language works.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (PMBgt)

54 The difference is politicians are beholden to special interests and donors. Trump has no such allegiance, which is good and bad (bad in that him doing whatever the fuck he wants could bode ill if it doesn't align with the voters who support him).

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:23 AM (qHgBB)
_____

Really? Im not so sure about this "beholden to noone" stuff. The guy has quite an ego and Im pretty sure he wants the Trump business empire to have a very long life. Sounds like the perfect hostage to make sure that Trump behaves himself in a manner that the establishment and its allies in the regulatory state find agreeable.

That he has much also means that he has much to lose.

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (SspTX)

55 by the way guys:

http://mynutritionninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/soar-with-eagles-1024x683.jpg

read it, learn it, live it.
Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:27 AM (dciA+)
---------
That sums up the W. Bush decision making quite well. I assume that is not what you meant though.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (NUqwG)

56 Trump's entire campaign has been based on the idea that:

Your Political Better Have Lied To You, And Continue Lying Today.

They lie that they're on your side on immigration.

They lie that they're on your side on abortion.

They lie that they're on your side on protecting American jobs.

They lie that they're going to stop the Democrats from applying their agenda unopposed.

They lie about lying to you!

If you assume that all (or even most) of those things are true, is it such a leap of logic to believe that these same politicians that have lied, boldly and to your face, about all of these things just might also lie about why we're deciding to go to war and spend a decade sacrificing American lives and treasure while we're there?

I don't think this hurts Trump at all. You are vastly overestimating the value of someone's feelings towards a President seven years out of office who barely crested 50% favorability in his own party when he left office.

Now if you're a pundit, or someone in the DC class, you're appalled.

Good. Fuck you.

Posted by: Make America Mexico Again at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (6e9oS)

57 And, absent the WMD, all the other arguments to go into Iraq weren't very conservative at all. Saddam could do nothing at all to us.

So Saddam's advisor was called Chemical Ali because he taught High School Chemistry...

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:31 AM (AoK0a)

58 someone #51 -

Iran is on the road to a nuke. Saddam barely had a standing army.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:31 AM (c8hIP)

59 The next POTUS may be the last POTUS. So choose wisely.

Posted by: But so what at February 14, 2016 02:31 AM (7wyDO)

60 48 I just don't see where else the Trumpkins go?

Cruz? Rubio? Jeb? Really?!

It's a party divided. Embrace the chaos!
Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:28 AM (21hN3)


They'll stay home.

Maybe not as many as before Scalia passed, but many nonetheless.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at February 14, 2016 02:31 AM (XiFxt)

61 Home. // Posted by: BourbonChicken

Not until he's dead as nominee?

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:31 AM (21hN3)

62 "So Bush should have known that the next President would so dependent on an Iranian communist advisor that he would give away Iraq?"
*********************

Is it really a stretch that Bush could have been clairvoyant enough to consider the fuckups he made as a president and seeing his popularity go down to single digits would all but guarantee a democrat successor who would take his fuckups and double down on it?

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:32 AM (qHgBB)

63 >>>When was he secretly your #1? I've been pretty convinced he's been your #2 for, well, a while. Anyway, if he's your #2, in what since are you with him?

sometimes i'll read a piece by Tucker Carlson or i'll just be exilerated by his smashing of icons that he jumps to #1, and i figure, it's worth the risk just to shake things up.

most times (especially as i've realized the dems are weak and we don't need a Magic bullet to beat them) i'm with Cruz.

but for quite some time i've been in the "I Can't Lose" position -- either I get president cruz or president trump, and i'm pretty stoked either way.


Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:32 AM (dciA+)

64 They'll stay home. Maybe not as many as before Scalia passed, but many nonetheless. // Posted by: Hawkins1701

Best case scenario, maybe ten percent gave up after tonight, but the rest will vote in the primary.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:32 AM (21hN3)

65 58 someone #51 -

Iran is on the road to a nuke. Saddam barely had a standing army.
Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:31 AM (c8hIP)

Ohh, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:32 AM (PMBgt)

66 The difference is politicians are beholden to special interests and donors. Trump has no such allegiance,

How many tens of millions of dollars did Soros loan Trump again? Or was it hundreds? I don't remember...

Posted by: Weirddave at February 14, 2016 02:32 AM (N8hFs)

67 #57 - Adriane the Political Critic
So what did he do with all the chemical weapons - flush them down the toilet when he saw world police America coming?

We got rolled. It's hard to admit, but I've come to terms with it and so should you?

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:33 AM (c8hIP)

68 Clinton is to blame for 9/11. He had the opportunity to bag bin Laden, and he declined to do so.

Carter and Clinton are to blame for the housing bubble. The Community Reinvestment Act was installed by Carter, and doubled down on by Clinton. What bank could resist being threatened with annihilation with Janet Reno on the other side?

I'm verklempt at those who decide that 20/20 hind sight is good, when their hindsight is, chronologically speaking, yesterday.

That being said, Trump showed his ass tonight, and I'm very sorry that he was so petulant. I was hoping he was better than that.

Posted by: kakypat at February 14, 2016 02:33 AM (HUXet)

69 Egad, Ace!

Just said my good nights on the ONT and then saw this! Have to peruse it tomorrow.

Looks interesting, though.

G'night now.

ICYMI, 20sec video webwork, "Trump is a Class Act"
http://bit.ly/trump-classy

Posted by: mindful webworker at February 14, 2016 02:34 AM (Q1QrS)

70 Ace et al:

With all due sincerity, and all kidding aside, Trump is SMOD personified, and many of his supporters are fully devoted to the apocalypse. From a political science perspective, I think you folks need to get comfortable with the idea that all old rules simply do not apply here.

*shrugs*

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:34 AM (21hN3)

71 The funny thing is that Trumpturfers think this language works.
Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (PMBgt)

And you tards have ORCA. GG+HF

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 14, 2016 02:34 AM (OvUux)

72 As someone who was all in for 1. Trump 2. Cruz until I became more aware of Cruz's bona fides, I am getting moe conflicted all the time.

In another thread, someone mentioned it was Trump's job to take out Yeb! Tonight, and it was Cruz's job to take out Rubio. Not sure if either landed a final blow, but both did pretty well on that score, if maniacally true.

Never seen anything like this, and hope to never see it again. There are but 2 I can vote for in the Primaries. Early voting has begun in GA. I'm glad I have not yet voted.

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 02:35 AM (YLidQ)

73
The difference is politicians are beholden to special interests and donors. Trump has no such allegiance, which is good and bad (bad in that him doing whatever the fuck he wants could bode ill if it doesn't align with the voters who support him).
Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:23 AM (qHgBB)


__________________

I love when Trump uses this line, because it's completely Trump. Of course he's not beholden to anyone, but that doesn't mean he'll use the power of the Presidency to pay back those who funded his campaign, i.e. Himself.

Outside of Hillary, I don't think anyone in recent history would use the position to enrich themselves more than Trump. We see how he's not afraid to go to the very legal limits of laws to get what he wants, now when you can alter laws or bring their power down on other, what will that bring out. He seems like the petty type of guy (like someone currently in office) who would sic the DoJ on those he doesn't like or those who are competing with his business. He'll funnel projects or deals towards his own holdings and be the corrupt POL that everyone claimed Cheney was.

Posted by: Rbastid at February 14, 2016 02:35 AM (XwTyM)

74 I, for one, feel like a fool for supporting the Iraq was as heavily as I did. I have a feeling that all this Bush support 13 years later is just people not being able to handle feeling equally foolish.
Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:27 AM (c8hIP)

Bullshit, hindsight is 20/20. 13 years ago was a different time. Everybody knows those goddamn WMD left Iraq months before the invasion. Hell my relatives in Iran would joke about how all the weapons were shipped out to Syria and nothing was done. George Bush was an honorable and decent man who did what he thought was best for his country given the awful circumstances. Fuck Donald Trump and his orange face. I'm not changing history to suit something that idiot says. If some of you want to engage in Cognitive Dissonance go ahead, I'm not following you off that cliff into the ocean because I'm Mad As Hell And Not Gonna Take It Anymore.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 02:35 AM (UnJ7w)

75 "you tards have ORCA"

That's right, Trump has the best microtargeting and ground game ever!

It's yuuuuuuuge!

Man, scratch a rational-seeming Trump supporter and you get a paranoiac LIV.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:36 AM (PMBgt)

76 >Oh! Gee! Thanks for pointing out that I was mistaken! I'm all in for Trump now!

Keep pretending that W is a messianic figure if you like. That and 'The Iraq war was a great idea, well planned and well justified!' are ever so popular positions.

Like it or not, people don't give a shit about W. Calling him a liar isn't going to spurn them into sudden anti-Trump fervor, even if they previously supported him. They're more likely to be relieved someone on the right is finally fucking saying it so they can agree without automatically being branded a liberal.

A bit like how Trump, by finally standing up for building a wall on the border, made a whole lot of people speak up for what the GOP previously treated as a nutty horrible idea that no INTELLIGENT conservative would ever say.

Posted by: Crude at February 14, 2016 02:36 AM (/IrCS)

77 I was a serious "Trump consideror" until tonight. He jumped the shark for me. It has nothing to do with Jeb! Bill Clinton caused 9/11 in my opinion, not Bush a few months into office. Also I don't support Planned Parenthood as Trump apparently said he does. I was frankly embarrassed for us who are Republicans after the display between Trump and Jeb!

Posted by: AnnaS at February 14, 2016 02:36 AM (P+I7L)

78 //but for quite some time i've been in the "I Can't Lose" position -- either I get president cruz or president trump, and i'm pretty stoked either way.//

That's basically where I've been, except with Trump in #1 and Cruz in #2 (Cruz occasionally popping into one for various reasons).

Guess after tonight I'm . . . well, right where I was, I guess.

Where are you?

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (RPsRI)

79 That he has much also means that he has much to lose.
*********************
I don't think the continuation of his empire is contingent on him winning the Presidency. I honestly believe Trump loves America and that if the country loses, he loses too.

That said, I don't know if he has the capacity to mature into a position of leadership that I believe requires far more statesmanship and self-restraint.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (qHgBB)

80 by the way, the eagle/turkeys gif isn't an insult. it's just something a friend said to me in an email a while back, as a joke. I'm just sharing the joke.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (dciA+)

81 The only reason I regret supporting Iraq as I did is that I expected everyone to have the same long term backbone we demonstrated in Germany and Korea. I never imagined that we'd tuck tail and run as we did under any party or administration.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (21hN3)

82 #65 someone -

I was wondering who the American was that still thought the 2003 Iraq invasion was a good idea. Nice to finally meet you.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (c8hIP)

83 >>>Guess after tonight I'm . . . well, right where I was, I guess.

Where are you?

...

i'm only on cruz now, and anti-trump. he is too emotionally uncontrolled and too intellectual unformed and too damn progressive.

He's al gore with a border fence.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:38 AM (dciA+)

84 Trump's supporters don't seem to have much in the way of principles. Trump has flip-flopped on nearly everything. His fans don't care. He could perform a partial birth abortion on live TV while promising to ban all guns and make every Mexican a citizen with fre single-payer health care and they would not care.

But.. Trump's support has been pretty level for months now at around 1/3rds. That's not nearly enough to win the nomination.

Usually popular nominees pick up steam, but I think Trump has alienated too many Republicans at this point to win a majority of delegates. Spouting left-wing conspiracy theories like he's a Village Voice editor does not help.

If he fails to get a majority, there's a decent chance of a brokered convention, which I don't think he will win. But hus fans--not understanding the process--will declare the brokered convention robbed him of "his" nomination.

So I somewhat agree with ace's premise: this probably won't tank his poll numbers now, but I think he's alienated a majority of GOP voters.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 02:38 AM (2HqwF)

85 "And Trump is putting to rest this idea that this fuckup was some kind of hero conservatives should respect."

Pretty much my take. I disagree w/Trump re: deliberate lie, but I have no more proof against that than Trump has for it. It's clear that Bush wanted a war with Iraq and that drove the intelligence-seeking efforts to justify it, and confirmation bias looms large in those circumstances. No smoking gun either way, and I'd personally prefer to believe that my leaders aren't so venal as to start wars on false pretexts. But that's emotionally motivated, not fact driven on my part.

All that aside, Bush's legacy has been heavy baggage since 08 and someone needed to toss it overboard.

Unless we have a huge boner for getting into another 100k+ troop war in the ME soon, we'd do best in learning from these mistakes by following Washington's advice. We had the chance to put ISIS down when they were manageable but that's past. I'm in no mood for a shooting war with Russia because of Syria or Iraq one way or the other, particularly where we're paying Syrian Iraqi men to collect welfare and lap dances in the West while sending our soldiers to fight for their countries.

Domestically, open borders, "free" trade, insane ZIRP monetary policies and bailouts aren't a pleasant legacy either.

Trump's a return to a more primitive, gut-level populism that's as much a repudiation of our ideological dead end as with our political class. "Liberal vs. Conservative" doesn't mean what it used to, and we need to find something both more accurately descriptive and more compelling to stand for (and against). The rough patriotic populism of Trump vs. the immature kumbaya communism of Sanders is the raw material from which we'll build new coalitions. Interesting times.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (82kfj)

86 Keep pretending that W is a messianic figure if you like. That and 'The Iraq war was a great idea, well planned and well justified!' are ever so popular positions.

Little pigs who build Houses Made of Straw see them get blown down ...

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (AoK0a)

87 That line just reveals more and more about it.

Isn't it odd that almost everything he spouts, from the Birth certificate to this, are also lines from the Hillary camp?

I expect him at the next debate to say Bengazi wasn't a big deal and that personal email servers are nothing more than making it easier for diplomats to do their job.

Outside of his bluster about the border, everything he believes in is a lefty policy (and if he cared so much about Illegals why are all of his properties and casinos packed with them as workers? Why doesn't he make a change where everyone has to be verified?) I wouldn't be surprised to see him close the border for every other company but find a way to import them for his companies, therefore giving himself a huge boost when it comes to employee cost.

Posted by: Rbastid at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (XwTyM)

88 I don't know. He's 4th place Jeb! for now but he's the only one with the dough to go the distance. In a way he's the only real threat to Trump taking the nomination.

Reducing W's cache now may have been necessary move for the long run.

Posted by: Viking at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (6y/kW)

89 Ace: Can you imagine an insane world where you support Trump as nominee with a counterbalancing VP pick, and if so, then which picks?

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (21hN3)

90 #75 Arson Wells -
==
Everybody knows those goddamn WMD left Iraq months before the invasion. Hell my relatives in Iran would joke about how all the weapons were shipped out to Syria and nothing was done.
==
Trump and his damn conspiracy theories, amirite?

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (c8hIP)

91 It's late so just one comment. Maybe just maybe GW Bush and company DID lie to us. Making all the blamer's and many Democrats right about Iraq, and maybe about a lot of other stuff too. The way the GOPe has been treating the base these last few years has been atrocious. So maybe just maybe Trump comes out of this still on both feet. We shall see. The only thing your right about is that he is not like us.

Posted by: tonynoboloney at February 14, 2016 02:40 AM (02AXE)

92 Ace, I know you don't know me, but I'm all in for Cruz, too.

Posted by: kakypat at February 14, 2016 02:41 AM (HUXet)

93 //i'm only on cruz now, and anti-trump. he is too emotionally uncontrolled and too intellectual unformed and too damn progressive.

He's al gore with a border fence.//

So, say he wins the nomination. What do you do? I agree he's intellectually unformed, but he's signed the Sessions Pledge. That's a big deal. You'd vote against that in a general? Really?

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at February 14, 2016 02:41 AM (RPsRI)

94 I was wondering who the American was that still thought the 2003 Iraq invasion was a good idea. Nice to finally meet you.

If it was such a bad idea why did Congress authorize it?

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:42 AM (AoK0a)

95 For every person clutching their pearls over the Big Mean Trump Man daring to throw shade at Dubs Jr., there's a family still grieving a lost soldier in Iraq who might not be 100% in agreement that we spent our military resources wisely chasing chemical weapons and stringing up a despot.

Posted by: Make America Mexico Again at February 14, 2016 02:42 AM (6e9oS)

96 The only reason I regret supporting Iraq as I did is that I expected everyone to have the same long term backbone we demonstrated in Germany and Korea. I never imagined that we'd tuck tail and run as we did under any party or administration.
Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (21hN3)
-----------
Well one slight difference is that there was a war going on in Iraq (and still is). There was only limited, short-term resistance in Germany after the surrender of the Nat Soc government. There was no resistance in Japan following their surrender.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 02:42 AM (NUqwG)

97 In retrospect, I do find it hard to believe that the entire western intelligence apparatus was wrong about WMDs in Iraq. It does seem overblown, no? Even if what was there got shipped off to Assad, then that's still not enough to justify the brouhaha?

*shrugs*

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:42 AM (21hN3)

98 Fuck Donald Trump and his orange face.


Yeah, I'm falling into the fuck Donald Trump and his orange face camp too.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 14, 2016 02:43 AM (sl+zA)

99

'Lying' , or not, about Irag now is a quaint memory....

It is the dissolution of the rule of law under the Constitution and the frontal war by the Left on ANY dissent and personal freedom--ie lawful dissent---as well as near economic collapse of the middle class (by design of the Left) that has stoked THE ANGER that makes Trump a thing.
The .GOPe....McConnell, Boehner and company's ineptness and betrayal is THE WAR--not Irag---that voters care most about now.

...Trump starts playing nice or covering for the GOPe he will have less support than Ben Carson.

Posted by: Lower Class person whose opinions need to be guided at February 14, 2016 02:43 AM (jagfX)

100 Also I don't support Planned Parenthood as Trump apparently said he does.
*************************

Trump's position is that he would defund Planned Parenthood's abortion factory while still permitting funding for non-abortion services. He didn't have a chance to clarify his position when Cruz was sniping him. I'm not sure if I would agree with it, but it's definitely not as bad as Cruz made it out to be.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:43 AM (qHgBB)

101 The only reason I regret supporting Iraq as I did is that I expected everyone to have the same long term backbone we demonstrated in Germany and Korea. I never imagined that we'd tuck tail and run as we did under any party or administration.
Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (21hN3)
-----
And there have only been a few axe attacks and other minor provocations in Korea.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 02:43 AM (NUqwG)

102 Lately Trump is reminding me of Doktor Paul.

You will be listening and just nodding happily along and then *Wham!* out comes the WTF?! Statement.

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 02:44 AM (YLidQ)

103 You might be dumb enough to be a Democrat ...

* If you believe that George W. Bush deliberately lied us into war in Iraq, and was so clever that he convinced Congress -- including the Smartest Woman Everrr! -- to approve it ... but was so dumb that he didn't think to plant some WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion.

* If you believe that the war in Iraq was "unwinnable" or that Bush hopelessly screwed it up ... but you believed Barack Hussein Obama when he took credit in his first term for "winning" the war and bringing peace to Iraq.

* If you believe Donald Trump is a conservative or even a "right-wing extremist."

Posted by: Herp McDerp at February 14, 2016 02:44 AM (7QRNd)

104 Posted by: RioBravo

Yeah, sure, but surely we all assumed Iraq would require a generational presence to keep the peace like every other major war in the last sixty years, no?

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:44 AM (21hN3)

105 #94 Adriane the Political Critic
==
If it was such a bad idea why did Congress authorize it?
==
Maybe you missed that part where I said "still," as in 13 years later. I fully admit that I bought the hype and supported the war in 03. I got rolled. A lot of people did. The issue is still acting like it was the right decision in 2016.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:45 AM (c8hIP)

106 Trump and his damn conspiracy theories, amirite?
Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:39 AM (c8hIP)

Trump's conspiracy theories are terrific!

Arson's are terrible, he's a nasty guy!

Trump 2016!

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 02:45 AM (UnJ7w)

107 Uh oh this thread won't end well

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 02:46 AM (uZNvH)

108 Again, folks, I hate defending Trump, but I'd say he's the type to say the entire governmental power structure betrayed us in terms of the post-9/11 Iraw invasion, not just GWB, Cheney, Republicans, Democrats, CIA, EU, etc. They all kinda fucked us, and you know what, I kinda wonder the same.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:46 AM (21hN3)

109 sorry to leave conversations interrupted -- but i'm too tired, and my eyes are burning.

sure we'll be continuing this conversation for a few more days!

Night!

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:46 AM (dciA+)

110 Did none of you read the administration books that came out after Bush left?

They did find WMDs. They didn't publicize them. Rove thought it was unnecessary. He was a fucking idiot about that as he was about pretty much every other macro scale thing.

We killed a lot of fucking jihadis, in a much better spot than fucking Afghanistan where we're continuing to burn through our military for nothing at all. And we had a huge base smack in the middle of the ME forever... until Obama gave it away for nothing at all in the single worst decision of the worst administration ever.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:47 AM (PMBgt)

111 there's a family still grieving a lost soldier in Iraq who might not be 100% in agreement that we spent our military resources wisely chasing chemical weapons and stringing up a despot.

You're free to name some names ...

Most of the military families I know were proud of there son's service and are appalled that Obama's foreign policy makes Gulf War 3 pretty much inevitable.

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:49 AM (AoK0a)

112 "Trump's position is that he would defund Planned Parenthood's abortion factory while still permitting funding for non-abortion services."

You realize this is a Dem position. It's the same money. There's no financial controls on them. It funds the abortion either way. Socon voters hate it either way.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:49 AM (PMBgt)

113 They found old, unusable WMDs, not the WMD production program we were sold on going to war over.

Posted by: Steven at February 14, 2016 02:50 AM (c8hIP)

114 What Trump's bizarre claim tonight says to me, is that he is stupider than I realized.

I say this because Trump did not come up with this "Bush Lied, People Died!" claim. This conspiracy theory has been a central tenet to leftism since 9/11, and especially since 2003. Every sign at every protest made this claim, and the lie was repeated so often that it was printed in "the news" as fact and eventually became just an unchallenged background fact that every clear-thinking person accepted. Or so the left hoped.

I suppose that Trump saw the "Bush lied!" meme in the media enough times that he just assumed it had to be true.

And that's why I think he's stupider than previously assumed: because if he is unable to filter out leftist narratives from provable facts, then he's a slave to the MSM Landscape of Lies.

Cruz, on the other hand, has made it a central point of his campaign that he's acutely aware that extreme leftists control most media and that he knows more than anyone that they cannot be trusted.

This reassessment of Trump's intelligence level would not be enough for me to vote against him in the general election should he win the nomination; but it does lower the already-low chance I would change my vote from Cruz to Trump in the California primary (which will probably be irrelevant, I realize).

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 02:50 AM (jBuUi)

115 Did none of you read the administration books that came out after Bush left?
Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:47 AM (PMBgt)

If it's not in The Art of the Deal I'm not reading it!

Posted by: Trump Superfan wearing his best "Who Farted?" t-shirt. at February 14, 2016 02:50 AM (UnJ7w)

116 Oh, and long-time pro-2A conservative here. If it's anybody but Cruz or Trump, I'm staying home.

I would happily vote for Cruz.

If it's Trump, I'm maxing out my donation to the Dem, going door-to-door for the Dem and voting for the Dem. That's my "burn it the fuck down" vote, Trumpkins.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 02:51 AM (2HqwF)

117 Trump's position is that he would defund Planned Parenthood's abortion
factory while still permitting funding for non-abortion services. He
didn't have a chance to clarify his position when Cruz was sniping him.
I'm not sure if I would agree with it, but it's definitely not as bad as
Cruz made it out to be.


You might want to look up the term "fungible". Claiming you'll not fund PP abortion but fund PP "everything else" is as impossible as scooping up a cup full of clouds.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 14, 2016 02:51 AM (N8hFs)

118 They did find WMDs. They didn't publicize them. Rove thought it was unnecessary. He was a fucking idiot about that as he was about pretty much every other macro scale thing.
******************

From what I understand they weren't "real" WMDs. More like cuddly cute mini-WMDs, or rather aged chemical weapons that didn't rise to the level of world ending catastrophic WMDs the public was expecting.

The other thing I read that they existed but Saddam destroyed most of them before the invasion, and some were carted off to Syria.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:52 AM (qHgBB)

119 If it's Trump, I'm maxing out my donation to the Dem, going door-to-door for the Dem and voting for the Dem. That's my "burn it the fuck down" vote, Trumpkins. // Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel

No matter who might be Trump's VP?

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:52 AM (21hN3)

120 109 sorry to leave conversations interrupted -- but i'm too tired, and my eyes are burning.

sure we'll be continuing this conversation for a few more days!

Night!

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:46


Damn -- missed it by that much!

(And by "it" i mean the chance to have The Boss read one's comment.)

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 02:52 AM (jBuUi)

121 Yeah, sure, but surely we all assumed Iraq would require a generational presence to keep the peace like every other major war in the last sixty years, no?
Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:44 AM (21hN3)
-----
Well:

Cheney: weeks rather than months (2003)
Rumsfeld: I don't do quaqmires
Chey: insurgency in final throes (2005)
Wolfy: Iraq can finance own reconstruction and relatively soon (2003)

Iraq was hardly a "major" war.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 02:52 AM (NUqwG)

122 You might want to look up the term "fungible". Claiming you'll not fund PP abortion but fund PP "everything else" is as impossible as scooping up a cup full of clouds.
***********************

Trump may not have realized that when he discussed the topic:

http://tinyurl.com/pou4ryq

It struck me as a reasonable position to take even if it's completely untenable.

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:54 AM (qHgBB)

123 Why did Congress authorize it? Remember the political climate at the time.

- We were barely a year out from 9/11, at a time when Bush's approval rating was between 62-68%
- It was put up for a vote in October 2002, less than a month before the midterm elections in a year where the incumbent party would actually gain seats in a midterm
- It went from introduction to passage in under two weeks
- There was still the implication that Saddam could have been a major player in the planning and execution of 9/11

For most Dems running in red/military states, opposing the authorization looked like political suicide.

Posted by: Make America Mexico Again at February 14, 2016 02:54 AM (6e9oS)

124 "No matter who might be Trump's VP?"

Yep, don't care. If we're gonna have a lying big gov socialist in the WH, at least let it be one the Right will be united against.

Next stop: civil war.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 02:55 AM (2HqwF)

125 Iraq was hardly a "major" war. // Posted by: RioBravo

Reconstituting a post-war nation the size of Iraq -- regardless of said nation being a border neighbor of an emerging Islamic nuclear power -- shoulda been seen as "major" by anyone with half a brain in the State Department, CIA, NSA, etc.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:56 AM (21hN3)

126 Maybe you missed that part where I said "still," as in 13 years later. I fully admit that I bought the hype and supported the war in 03. I got rolled. A lot of people did. The issue is still acting like it was the right decision in 2016.

It was the right decision.

Does the fact that Merkel let too many "refugees" into Germany make "Tear Down This Wall!" the wrong decision? Defending Checkpoint Charlie the wrong decision?

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:56 AM (AoK0a)

127 I don't imagine Gaddafi coming clean if we hadn't invaded Iraq. And I don't imagine Iran having a nuclear program if the US opinion on Iraq hadn't soured (right or wrong).

And all of these things affect people's idea of just how dangerous the world is. The world didn't change of course. Good policy is followed by a gentle opinion of the world.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 14, 2016 02:57 AM (VdICR)

128 "ideological dead end"

I love when folks really out themselves. They really think when we say we want to blow up the GOP, that doesn't mean we want to return it to its principles, it means what we *really* want is to turn it into the Democratic party, just more protectionist and anti-immigration.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:57 AM (PMBgt)

129 118 They did find WMDs. They didn't publicize them. Rove thought it was unnecessary. He was a fucking idiot about that as he was about pretty much every other macro scale thing.
******************

From what I understand they weren't "real" WMDs. More like cuddly cute mini-WMDs, or rather aged chemical weapons that didn't rise to the level of world ending catastrophic WMDs the public was expecting.

The other thing I read that they existed but Saddam destroyed most of them before the invasion, and some were carted off to Syria.
Posted by: Burn It Down


Of course there were WMDs.

Many were destroyed leading up to, during and immediately after the invasion.

Many were indeed carted of to Syria.

And the remnants were found in situ in Iraq.

But the media down-down-downplayed these to such an extent they they successfully "buried" the news.

Furthermore, and I'm shocked no one cites it anymore, is that the invasion was not based on the existence of WMDs, but rather than Saddam had violated many of the agreements set in place after Gulf War I and the Clinton era. And if he violated the agreements, the the ceasefire was over, according to what was agreed.

The whole "Where are the WMDs?" question was and remains a distraction from the real (and valid) reasons for the resumption of war.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 02:58 AM (jBuUi)

130 Reconstituting a post-war nation the size of Iraq -- regardless of said nation being a border neighbor of an emerging Islamic nuclear power -- shoulda been seen as "major" by anyone with half a brain in the State Department, CIA, NSA, etc.
Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:56 AM (21hN3)
-----
Well they were all either stupid or liars then. Reconstruction and war are not the same thing.
That assessment is not an NSA responsibility.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 02:58 AM (NUqwG)

131
Yep, don't care. If we're gonna have a lying big gov socialist in the WH, at least let it be one the Right will be united against.

Next stop: civil war.
Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 02:55 AM (2HqwF)

What is this VP talk about anyway? When did you ever hear someone say "Hmm not sure about that Reagan character. Oh look! George H. Bush is his VP, sold!". Or "Fuck Obama, I'd never vote for him! What's that you say? Joe Biden as his VP? Intriguing...go on."

I'm with you.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 02:59 AM (UnJ7w)

132 No matter who might be Trump's VP?

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 02:52 AM (21hN3)
____

Conservatives need to stop with the veep nonsense. Unless there is a 50/50 senate, its a completely useless office. Powerless and totally dependent on the president. Nothing more than an advising mascot. And when veeps run for potus after serving 2 terms, they usually lose, because the White House swings every 8 years. The job is a dead end.

Its even bad for a consolation price.

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 14, 2016 03:00 AM (SspTX)

133 Furthermore, and I'm shocked no one cites it anymore, is that the invasion was not based on the existence of WMDs ... // Posted by: zombie

That's the thing? Smart folks knew better, but the voting public got sucked into the least common argument, and they were kinda ticked off when proven to be idiots after the fact.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 03:00 AM (21hN3)

134 "Trump's position is that he would defund Planned Parenthood's abortion
factory while still permitting funding for non-abortion services."


technically, that is the status quo right now, as gov't money can't be "spent" on abortion, but as we all know money is fungible

so Trump is on Team Obama on this one

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:01 AM (uZNvH)

135 And when veeps run for potus after serving 2 terms, they usually lose, because the White House swings every 8 years. The job is a dead end.

But think of all the good looking girls, Creepy Uncle Joe has got to fondle !!!!

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 03:01 AM (AoK0a)

136 And the remnants were found in situ in Iraq.
------
I have seen no public information on finds of any chemical weapons that were not stale and left over from before the First Iraq War. Technical non-compliance of UN requirements to "destroy" (time destroyed them instead) but certainly in no way evidence of a prohibited weapons program.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:03 AM (NUqwG)

137 That Ted Cruz is a real nasty guy, and nobody likes him for calling Mitch McConnell a liar.

Hey, that George W. Bush lied us into Iraq.

Posted by: D. Trump at February 14, 2016 03:03 AM (H9MG5)

138 The whole "Where are the WMDs?" question was and remains a distraction from the real (and valid) reasons for the resumption of war.
**************************

I don't agree, Bush specifically made the case for war not merely on UN violations but that Saddam's access to WMDs and ties to terrorism would be catastrophic:

"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, "After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?"

And there's a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact they would be eager, to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon."

Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 03:03 AM (qHgBB)

139 Cruz, on the other hand, has made it a central point of his campaign that he's acutely aware that extreme leftists control most media and that he knows more than anyone that they cannot be trusted.

Was it distrust of the media that caused the Bush Administration to avoid its confrontation?

Posted by: derit at February 14, 2016 03:03 AM (OC+TJ)

140 The Iraq War had 3 justifications

- Enforcing UN resolutions
- Destroying a safe haven for terrorists
- Getting rid of WMD

Only the last one got any significant media play, because the war achieved Objective #1 and #2, but it wasn't so clear that it achieved #3 and so Democrats seized on that one to destroy public trust in the war.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:04 AM (uZNvH)

141 And when veeps run for potus after serving 2 terms, they usually lose, because the White House swings every 8 years. The job is a dead end.

Its even bad for a consolation price.
Posted by: The Nayden Broad


Tell that to Truman, LBJ, Ford, Bush I and almost Gore.

Also, Nixon was VP and then became pres, but he had to wait a couple cycles because the Dems defrauded him out of Illinois.

If you add up the terms of Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (all of whom went from VP to the Presidency), you see that half the time we are ruled by former VPs.

So it's not as much of a dead-end after all.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:05 AM (jBuUi)

142 Actually, the invasion created a haven for terrorists.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:05 AM (NUqwG)

143 Bush's WMD assessment was identical to Bill Clinton and the people who worked for him. That vast right-wing conspiracy must truly be vast if it includes Senator Hillary.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 14, 2016 03:06 AM (VdICR)

144 "Was it distrust of the media that caused the Bush Administration to avoid its confrontation?"

No, they were naive and didn't understand that culture is upstream of politics.

As I said, Rove was a f'in idiot about every macro thing. He *prevented* Bush from pushing back against media narratives.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 03:06 AM (PMBgt)

145 "Plus, you'll have a hard time finding a sleazy deal on Trump's end, unless you believe Cruz's lie about Trump bulldozing "that poor woman's" house, which he didn't. For the most part, Trump's business dealings have been scandal free. "
Unless you bought into his Trump University (now being investigated for fraud by the NY State AG, and subject to 2 class action lawsuits.)
Unless you were a Scottish farmer who dared to exist within view of Trump's Golf resort.
Unless you were a small contractor who got stiffed on your fees with the words "We have company lawyers, you have to pay by the hour, you can make tit up on the next job."
Unless you find nothing wrong with a billionaire defaulting on millions of dollars of loans (that wouldn't affect a banks ability to keep functioning at all now would it?)
Unless you were Vera Coking, whose house Trump did try to use government to get so he could bulldoze it.




Posted by: Tyrconnell at February 14, 2016 03:06 AM (jeKFO)

146 My only point about VP was that I suspect Trump's VP would be much more significant than usual.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 14, 2016 03:06 AM (21hN3)

147 "Actually, the invasion created a haven for terrorists."

Actually, Obama's unilateral cowboy withdrawal did that.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 03:06 AM (PMBgt)

148 I love when folks really out themselves. They
really think when we say we want to blow up the GOP, that doesn't mean
we want to return it to its principles, it means what we *really* want
is to turn it into the Democratic party, just more protectionist and
anti-immigration.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:57 AM (PMBgt)

then why are you supporting a protectionist, anti-immigration Democrat?

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:07 AM (uZNvH)

149 Oy ...

Edits due tomorrow ...

Good Night, Good People

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 03:08 AM (AoK0a)

150 Posted by: Tyrconnell at February 14, 2016 03:06 AM (jeKFO)

*****

Yeah, no way that was a C&P.

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:08 AM (YLidQ)

151 Eh?

I'm supporting Cruz.

I meant the Trumpbots. They don't get that the most significant part of stopping amnesty is to maintain a reasonably conservative electorate. If the price of that is to dump conservatism anyway... no sale.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 03:09 AM (PMBgt)

152 >Little pigs who build Houses Made of Straw see them get blown down ...

Blow, then. But we both know you'd just be wasting your breath.

W was a shitty president. He launched a stupid fucking war, a poorly thought out one. There were conservatives at the time saying the whole thing was a rotten idea and the administration was bullshitting its way into it - they were attacked for it.

W is no longer sacred to conservatives. You'd think people would have figured this out when Jeb cratered in the polls while Trump more than once said W didn't keep our country safe.

And insisting that -true- conservatives support unfettered free trade, oppose a wall on the border, support a pathway to legalization for illegals and would NEVER support deporting illegal aliens en masse, is a great way to reveal that the GOP base isn't 'conservative' by that definition after all.

Oh, and while I'm at it... I look forward to seeing how the GOP in the senate handles Scalia's death. Wait for 'The most important thing in the world is to make sure the next SCOTUS justice is nominated by a republican!' to turn into 'Oops they said we're racist and sexist if we don't nominate this guy, so we're going to say we compromised and found a great deal, it's our duty.'

And some fucking pundits will act like they believe it.

Posted by: Crude at February 14, 2016 03:09 AM (/IrCS)

153 Actually, the invasion created a haven for terrorists.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:05 AM (NUqwG)

No actually, it prevented terrorists from coming to our shores and killing us. They were too busy killing our soldiers in Iraq. Also, what do you think Saddam and his offspring were doing to their own countrymen? You don't need a suicide vest to be a "terrorist".

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:09 AM (UnJ7w)

154 Bush's WMD assessment was identical to Bill Clinton
--------
And other counties including several European allies. Based in the information made public to date about the intelligence the decision for war is based on, our intelligence system was virtually useless regarding Iraq. Iraq had to have been a top three intelligence target since 1990. I wonder if anything has been done to improve performance.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:09 AM (NUqwG)

155 then why are you supporting a protectionist, anti-immigration Democrat?
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:07 AM (uZNvH)

*****

FFS. When are you going to direct this fire to Her Thighness and the Bern rather than fcuking whining about Trump here?

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:10 AM (YLidQ)

156 When are you going to direct this fire to Her Thighness and the Bern rather than fcuking whining about Trump here?
Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:10 AM (YLidQ)


Because we're in the REPUBLICAN Primary and not the General Election?

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:12 AM (UnJ7w)

157 No actually, it prevented terrorists from coming to our shores and killing us.
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:09 AM (UnJ7w)
----
How was that? All the world's transport was occupied taking hem to Iraq?

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:12 AM (NUqwG)

158 "I wonder if anything has been done to improve performance."

You mean besides abandoning our ground presence, having our computers severely compromised, and letting every potential ally know we're bound to sell them out whenever the D political machine wants it?

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 03:13 AM (PMBgt)

159 140 The Iraq War had 3 justifications

- Enforcing UN resolutions
- Destroying a safe haven for terrorists
- Getting rid of WMD

Only the last one got any significant media play, because the war achieved Objective #1 and #2, but it wasn't so clear that it achieved #3 and so Democrats seized on that one to destroy public trust in the war.
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16


Bingo. That's exactly what I was trying to say, but said more clearly.

It's a classic debating technique -- to only attack the one weak argument, and ignore the strong arguments. In fact, it was famously used in the OJ trial to get him off.

Here is how to lose an argument which you should be winning:

"We have irrefutable evidence #1 proving our point. We have irrefutable evidence #2 proving our point. We have irrefutable evidence #3 proving our point. Oh, and also, we have evidence #4 leading support to our position, but it's not rock solid."

Opponent: "Ah HA! Evidence #4 is not proven, therefore your entire case falls apart!"

If you have proof that can't be refuted, don't even mention the more loosey-goosey side issues. It just weakens your case.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:14 AM (jBuUi)

160 When called out for straw men, erect more.

Brilliant!

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 03:14 AM (PMBgt)

161 How was that? All the world's transport was occupied taking hem to Iraq?
Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:12 AM (NUqwG)

It's easier to attack your enemy in your homeland than going abroad. That said, It's not like the middle east was a beacon of civility and peace. The middle east was already a haven for terrorists. They hit us first.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:14 AM (UnJ7w)

162 Because we're in the REPUBLICAN Primary and not the General Election?
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:12 AM (UnJ7w)

*****

You edited out the FFS. Why was that?

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:14 AM (YLidQ)

163
GWB's avid supporters were/are the traitors and cowards- Rove, Boehner, McConnell and their GOPe fellow travelers who openly fucked their voters as they gave Obama what he wanted.

Trump went too far and was more out of control than usual but ANYthing that can come off as attacking the GOPe---and GWB was/is the GOPe---Trump can survive.

But did Trump help himself? Not at all. But he did not likely damage himself much either.

There is a special hate/hell for traitors and cowards that, imo, is the correct way to look at the GOPe 'led' by Boehner, McConnell.. and now Ryan and company.

.

Posted by: Lower Class person whose opinions need to be guided at February 14, 2016 03:15 AM (jagfX)

164 It's easier to attack your enemy in your homeland than going abroad. That said, It's not like the middle east was a beacon of civility and peace. The middle east was already a haven for terrorists. They hit us first.
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:14 AM (UnJ7w)
------
And now it is even worse.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:15 AM (NUqwG)

165
You edited out the FFS. Why was that?
Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:14 AM (YLidQ)

FFS my scrolling finger gets lazy sometimes.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:16 AM (UnJ7w)

166 "And now it is even worse."

Thanks to Obama's need for a campaign line.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 03:16 AM (PMBgt)

167 Tell that to Truman, LBJ, Ford, Bush I and almost Gore.

Also, Nixon was VP and then became pres, but he had to wait a couple cycles because the Dems defrauded him out of Illinois.

If you add up the terms of Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (all of whom went from VP to the Presidency), you see that half the time we are ruled by former VPs.

So it's not as much of a dead-end after all.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:05 AM (jBuUi)
______

Most of your examples are ancient history. Most of the veeps you re naming were still dealing with the permanent Democratic majority in Congress for gods sake. These days the veep office isnt worth spit.

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at February 14, 2016 03:17 AM (Bf/qS)

168 142 Actually, the invasion created a haven for terrorists.
Posted by: RioBravo


No, the invasion was successful, and we conclusively won the Iraq War:

http://www.zombietime.com/vi_day/

Then, Obama allowed a new war to flare up, and then lost it.

DON'T ACCEPT THE MEDIA NARRATIVE.

Read my link above and you will be convinced. What happened after 2009 was a separate war.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:17 AM (jBuUi)

169 And now it is even worse.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:15 AM (NUqwG)

It is worse but not because of George W Bush. You might take a look at Barky pulling out of Iraq to win his 2nd term as a factor. Or not.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:18 AM (UnJ7w)

170 So, Crude, why do you support Trump? Be specific.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:18 AM (uZNvH)

171 147 "Actually, the invasion created a haven for terrorists."

Actually, Obama's unilateral cowboy withdrawal did that.
Posted by: someone


Yep.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:18 AM (jBuUi)

172 We're all headed for what Heinlein famously called "bad luck" on the international scene.

Fuck Donald Trump and His Orange Face. I will still pull the lever for him over Bernie or Hill, in a heartbeat, but the opinion still stands.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 14, 2016 03:18 AM (VdICR)

173 FFS my scrolling finger gets lazy sometimes.
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:16 AM (UnJ7w)

****

That was supposed to be a subtle reminder that you answered a question I asked Chemjeff.

He tends to avoid questions like that.

*Sigh*

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:19 AM (YLidQ)

174 Tim, because I regard Trump and Hillary and Bernie to all be my adversaries this election year.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:20 AM (uZNvH)

175 *Sigh*
Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:19 AM (YLidQ)

FFS I don't always mind my own business.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:20 AM (UnJ7w)

176
Then, Obama allowed a new war to flare up, and then lost it.

-------
The old one never ended. Besides the Obama policy in the Middle East is not significantly different than the Bush policy whether referring to Iraq, Afghanistan, or "more democracy - overthrow the tyrants".

You can pretend that Iraq was great until Obama screwed it up if you want though.

Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:21 AM (NUqwG)

177 #137 has it.

Trump can compare Ben Carson to a child molestor, and you don't think he will also use 9/11 and Iraq against Bush?

I doubt he even believes it himself. Its just a useful attack.

Trump didn't spend on a ground game in Iowa. His error.

2 days after losing he's on twitter whining about dirty tricks. Trump would be the first guy to use a dirty trick.

If he loses, he will run 3rd party and Hillary wins.

That's what will happen.

Posted by: sexypig at February 14, 2016 03:23 AM (dZQh7)

178 147 "Actually, the invasion created a haven for terrorists."

Yeah, in 2003-2005 the trendy liberal opinion was what I called Terrorist Pez. Take one out and another pops up. Our defeat was INEVITABLE until Obama declared victory.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 14, 2016 03:23 AM (VdICR)

179 Tim, because I regard Trump and Hillary and Bernie to all be my adversaries this election year.
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:20 AM (uZNvH)

******

Then let's see the same vitriol you lather yourself up with here toward Trump directed toward Hillary! or the Bern. Deal?

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:23 AM (YLidQ)

180 The old one never ended. ...You can pretend that Iraq was great until Obama screwed it up if you want though.
Posted by: RioBravo


It did end.

I repeat:

http://www.zombietime.com/vi_day/

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:24 AM (jBuUi)

181 FFS I don't always mind my own business.
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:20 AM (UnJ7w)

***

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:25 AM (YLidQ)

182 You can pretend that Iraq was great until Obama screwed it up if you want though.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 14, 2016 03:21 AM (NUqwG)

At one point Iraq was the most stable country in the Middle East because of our presence. Obama pulling out did fuck it up massively. And all to secure a 2nd term.

Oh and as I said earlier, Fuck Donald Trump and his Orange Face.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:26 AM (UnJ7w)

183 Then let's see the same vitriol you lather yourself up with here toward Trump directed toward Hillary! or the Bern. Deal?

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:23 AM (YLidQ)

What is your point? I think both Hillary and Bernie would be awful. But they at least are running as Democrats in the Democrat primary.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:26 AM (uZNvH)

184 i tend to agree that trump might have damaged himself with the base but i am actually terrified of what he said and i'll tell you why. i despise trump and don't think the damage he has done will be appreciated in the short term. since i despise trump, i am encouraged by the possibility he hurt himself enough that he will not be the nominee. that possible future would be welcome. but it is the other possible future that terrifies me; the future where he made those statements, goes on to win the gop nomination, and faces hillary. because hillary isn't defending her iraq vote predicated on bush's dishonesty but on bush's handling of the war. if hillary also was on record saying bush lied us in to war then trump's saying so wouldn't concern me as much. so, in the presidential debates of a clinton vs. trump race, both will be saying iraq was a mistake/disaster (which i think a lot of people agree with), but clinton will be defending bush's integrity to make that point while trump will be denigrating bush's integrity to make that point. in doing so, clinton will soothe the character judgements that bush voters/supporters made and/or still maintain of bush while offering (widely agreed upon, imo) criticism of the war's management/ramifications. in contrast, trump will be offering the same (widely agreed upon, imo) criticism of the war but will insult republicans by implying they lacked the judgement/wisdom to sniff out such a devious, lying warmonger. bush defenders and republican voters in general might prefer clinton's version of events to trump's. terrifyingly, so might iraq/afghan vets and the families of those lost in battle. just as the world is plunging deeper and deeper into instability and moral darkness, the people who fly our jets and service our tanks and arm our helicopters and manage our nukes might be consoled by clinton and offended by trump. might get a warm and fuzzy reassurance from a democrat and bitter rejection from a republican. just as a societal/cultural doom appears imminent, democrats are suddenly and safely more attractive than republicans (who have been traditionally favored) by the most dangerous and well-trained among us. hillary's iraq vote will be used to validate a righteousness of the (admittedly mismanaged) sacrifices, while trump invalidates any and all consolation.

Posted by: obamuh at February 14, 2016 03:26 AM (8Ik2I)

185 "Then let's see the same vitriol you lather yourself up with here toward Trump directed toward Hillary! or the Bern. Deal?"

"If you really intend to take Berlin, then why are you attacking Normandyyyy??? Waaah!"

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 03:27 AM (2HqwF)

186 The problem with saying "We had other reasons to go into Iraq besides WMDs" is that those reasons are really fucking weak tea to justify a war without the WMD/9-11 connections. We have plenty of nations right now that openly defy UN Resolutions (North Korea, Turkey) and are safe havens for terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

Are we looking to pass force authorizations against any of them? Hell, the Norks actually have WMDs! They seem to be conducting H-bomb testing underground!

I honestly don't believe Congress would have passed the force authorization simply on the basis of "They're in violation of the UN, and bad guys are safe there!" The threat of WMDs was the tipping point that made the war palatable.

Posted by: Make America Mexico Again at February 14, 2016 03:27 AM (6e9oS)

187 Great! Really hope you're right. Cannot abide that guy. Too orange.

Posted by: JohnHM at February 14, 2016 03:27 AM (VekM5)

188 The threat of WMDs was the tipping point that made the war palatable.
Posted by: Make America Mexico Again at February 14, 2016 03:27 AM (6e9oS)

9/11 made that war more palatable. No matter how irrational the fear is. People tend to like being alive and expect their gov't to protect them.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 14, 2016 03:30 AM (UnJ7w)

189 What is your point? I think both Hillary and Bernie would be awful. But they at least are running as Democrats in the Democrat primary.
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:26 AM (uZNvH)

******

My point is that you are devoting the rather impressive amount of time that you seem to have available to hang here to slamming a running Republican.

I understand that you have adopted the otherizing tactic of labeling him as a Democrat for your purpose, but your saying so does not make this true.

If you are worried about actual Dems, please begin letting us know as strenuously as you advocate against the Republican Party's front running candidate. Deal?

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:34 AM (YLidQ)

190 Trump literally tested his own lightweight remark about his supporters' loyalty?

Posted by: derit at February 14, 2016 03:36 AM (OC+TJ)

191 Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:34 AM (YLidQ)

oh give me a break, I spend maybe 1/10th the time here than most of the other "regulars" here do

Trump is a NYC 'moderate' Democrat based on his positions that he took *just tonight* - parroting the Gore/Hillary/Pelosi attack on Bush as "lying us into war", defending public funding of Planned Parenthood, wanting to preserve the status quo when it comes to entitlements. That doesn't even get into the rest of his flip-floppery nonsense. In terms of his positions, he is an even bigger RINO than Kasich and Jeb combined. So it's not just some 'tactic', that is who he is.

I realize you all don't care, you would follow him to the ends of the earth because you want a strong man to fix things while making the liberals suffer and cry. While I want them to cry too, I want a conservative to be the one making them cry, not some poorly-coiffed unprincipled showman.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:42 AM (uZNvH)

192 and that is it for me tonight, good night all

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:45 AM (uZNvH)

193 Strategically, I think Trump is already looking forward to the general election.

He knows that he can actually snag a lot of LIVs who have sort of unwittingly internalized the "Bush Lied!" meme, and that they'll outnumber the lost votes of the disgruntled die-hard neocons that he'll lose by dissing Bush. Political calculus.

Now, one may argue that Trump is being foolish by just ASSUMING that he's going to win the nomination, and prematurely pivoting to pick up all the noncommittal Bush-haters.

If he loses the nomination because of this, it will be seen (as Ace surmises) as an epic blunder.

But if he wins the nom anyway and through his Bush-bashing actually picks up 5%-10% of LIVs who otherwise may have gone default Dem, and wins the general election as a result, then he will be seen as a genius.

Only time will tell which way history will judge tonight.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 03:45 AM (jBuUi)

194 I realize you all don't care, you would follow him to the ends of the earth because you want a strong man to fix things while making the liberals suffer and cry. While I want them to cry too, I want a conservative to be the one making them cry, not some poorly-coiffed unprincipled showman.
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:42 AM (uZNvH)

****

This response in no way answers my query, unsurprisingly.

You are obsessed, and this is pretty sad to see in an otherwise GOPe lite but formerly rational person.

So, when do you trade in the Trump hate for the actual opponent hate? Please be specific, and show your work.

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:47 AM (YLidQ)

195 George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East," Trump said."You call it whatever you want. I will tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction," Trump ripped Bush.


Yeah, don't care for this at all. A little too much 'truther' in this. It might appeal to some on the fence democrats, at the expense of some republicans.

Once again Trump grabs the headline though.

Posted by: zika bearing mosquito at February 14, 2016 03:48 AM (fbovC)

196 and that is it for me tonight, good night all
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 14, 2016 03:45 AM (uZNvH)

****

Totally Unsurprising. G'Night.

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 03:49 AM (YLidQ)

197 One of Bernie's constant critiques against HRC is her vote for the war on Iraq. Now here's Trump saying Bush Lied!!! ... Trump's tack here gives HRC cover against that -- and so by extension Trump is helping HRC ...

Posted by: checkitouter at February 14, 2016 03:57 AM (Wsh1l)

198 But someone adroit in persuasion understands when he is in fact attacking the core of someone's sense of self-worth,

Trump's retarded notions about the Iraq War don't attack my sense of self-worth, at all. Trump's just wrong. Big whoop. If I had the chance to speak with him I'd tear his arguments apart.

This is not a big deal ... except that I am disappointed that Trump would hang onto such a silly notion ... but everyone's got a few of these.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 03:59 AM (zc3Db)

199 Steven and Estrada are new trolls and mobys. There were WMDs all over Iraq and solid strategic reasons to take Iraq -- not the least of which to bracket Iran -- that were pissed away by the anti-American left for the sole intent of embarrassing Republicans. Iraq was so in-the-bag that lefties made the mistake of taking credit for the victory before deciding to make it into shit to smear.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:00 AM (EzgxV)

200 Dress it up however you like, the subconscious messaging in every election is just that.

I'm on Your side.

He's not like Us.


Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. These are two possible selling points but they are far from the only ones and far from the most important ones, except in specific instances when all else outside of these are lacking.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:01 AM (zc3Db)

201 Trump isn't a conservative. His supporters are judging him on what he'll do, not on what he's done. What he's done is support left wing policies. That's what he'd do as president too.

Posted by: Mike at February 14, 2016 04:08 AM (c056A)

202 Millenial trolls pretty heavy in this thread.

Posted by: Kerry Lawson at February 14, 2016 04:08 AM (VQea+)

203 Just ran through the first 100 comments.....are everyone's moby-meters at the shop? It's an election year -- all the new commenters are 99% paid by PACs or candidates. That's why they continuously spew bullshit like it was gospel.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:10 AM (EzgxV)

204 My real opinion is this:

All our second guesses about "strategic thinking" and attempts to probe Trump's psyche are simply futile.

If Trump is even following any principle here, it's this:

All publicity is good publicity.

He goal is simply to say at least one outrageous, jaw-dropping, insulting, hilarious, memorable or bizarre statement during each and every 24-hour news cycle, so that he simply dominates the headlines constantly, denying oxygen to every other candidate.

But that's assuming if he is doing this consciously.

But I no longer even think that. Now I think he stumbles in to Total News-Cycle Domination simply by accident, because he can't control his mouth.

In short, he just blabs whatever zinger comes into his mind at any moment, and these zingers so often blow everyone's mind that Trump steals every headline, from here to November.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:13 AM (jBuUi)

205 I don't know.
W is not fondly remembered by a majority of Republicans.
We feel he screwed up the Party with his compassionate conservative bullshit, his lack of fiscal restraint and his idiotic 2006 Amnesty push.
In short, there's not a deep well of support for him..

Posted by: TexasJew at February 14, 2016 04:17 AM (Nh5O0)

206 But I no longer even think that. Now I think he stumbles in to Total News-Cycle Domination simply by accident, because he can't control his mouth.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:13 AM (jBuUi)


It's not just that he "can't" or won't control his mouth but he seems to have no problem being honest about his opinions - even the stupid ones. This is very refreshing and very unusual in politics and, luckily for Trump, he is correct on the most important issues, the deal-breaker issues that everyone else seems determined to smack the population over the head with dishonest, treasonous blathering about.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:18 AM (zc3Db)

207 203 Just ran through the first 100 comments.....are everyone's moby-meters at the shop? It's an election year -- all the new commenters are 99% paid by PACs or candidates. That's why they continuously spew bullshit like it was gospel.
Posted by: cthulhu


My moby-meter overloaded months and months ago. At this point I just assume that every single commenter I don't recognize personally, on every site, is a moby.

And if you think it's bad now, just wait until the general election. It will be a constant firehose of mobys, concern-trolls, and nickjackers. 24/7. The left will "flood the zone" with political poison.

Their goal? To wear us out defending our own turf, so we don't have any time or energy to made inroads into the mainstream zeitgeist.

I say: Bring it. You have underestimated us.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:19 AM (jBuUi)

208 I am a lifelong Conservative but after watching Trump flip-flopping from issue to issue, acting exactly like a thin-skinned Obama, shouting at people and calling them nasty, vile, and liars while acting and doing the same things he's accusing them of. He has no proof of any of the accusations he has made and acts like a petulant child foaming at the mouth. In other words, he is a liberal Democrat masquerading as a Conservative Republican. I'm 57 years old and have voted in every Presidential election and am now considering sitting this one out if Trump is the nominee, not because I want to destroy the Establishment, which I do, but because a vote for Trump is no different than a vote for Hillary or Sanders.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:20 AM (YwQCs)

209 Yeah..I got attacked why I asked "when are the Trump voters going to get serious?"

So I ask again, when are you going to realize the stakes here now that we have a Supreme Court pick to block if we are lucky enough to forestall Obama?

Posted by: deusexmachina05 at February 14, 2016 04:20 AM (jDcTk)

210 I don't know.
W is not fondly remembered by a majority of Republicans.
We feel he screwed up the Party with his compassionate conservative bullshit, his lack of fiscal restraint and his idiotic 2006 Amnesty push.

In short, there's not a deep well of support for him..

Posted by: TexasJew at February 14, 2016 04:17 AM (Nh5O0)


He was fantastic in his first term but Bush's second term was one of the worst disasters ever. Bush should have not run in 2004 - when he did and took what should have been a 12% blowout and managed to turn it into a squeaker win, and even in that he was only saved by the Swift Boat Veterans and his determination not to surrender and run from Iraq.

Bush veered so wildly left in his second term that he left skid marks all over the base.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:21 AM (zc3Db)

211 And, now, for something completely different.....went to a gun show today. It was less interesting than I'd hoped.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:23 AM (EzgxV)

212 And, now, for something completely different.....went to a gun show today. It was less interesting than I'd hoped.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:23 AM (EzgxV)


Any 22LR ammo for sale at normal prices (like 4 or 5 cents@)? I haven't seen anything less than 10 cents@ in 22 LR for years ... and 22 is great, but not at those prices.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:24 AM (zc3Db)

213 Hey cooth!

Do you know frozen pipes?

Posted by: fluffy at February 14, 2016 04:26 AM (AfsKp)

214 208 I am a lifelong Conservative but after watching Trump flip-flopping from issue to issue, acting exactly like a thin-skinned Obama, shouting at people and calling them nasty, vile, and liars while acting and doing the same things he's accusing them of. He has no proof of any of the accusations he has made and acts like a petulant child foaming at the mouth. In other words, he is a liberal Democrat masquerading as a Conservative Republican. I'm 57 years old and have voted in every Presidential election and am now considering sitting this one out if Trump is the nominee, not because I want to destroy the Establishment, which I do, but because a vote for Trump is no different than a vote for Hillary or Sanders.
Posted by: Whippet


Now, see, I am a Cruz supporter and will definitely vote for Cruz, but even I in all honesty perceive this comment as most likely made by someone in the employ of the Cruz campaign.

Not a "troll" or "moby," but more along the lines of a "shill." And I;m saying this as a Cruz voter!

Message to the Ted campaign, since I assume you're reading this: Up your shill-comment game. These arguments against Trump sound too poll-tested and rehearsed, and not like authentic blog comments.

I don't disagree with the strategy: I wince at its ineffectual execution.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:28 AM (jBuUi)

215 Happy Valentines Day to all my Valentines on here.

I read on Yahoo that Trump won the debate which I find shocking, considering nearly every person with a brain believes he bombed.

Posted by: TickledPink at February 14, 2016 04:30 AM (F5hTl)

216 ace, as usual, lets his barge solipsism guide him.

Here's where you fail again and again, without making a single amendment: what you, a political wonk, process masturbator, see, is *not* what the mass of GOP voters sees.

They voted for Bush and supported Bush, yes.
Will they be insulted by someone deriding Bush? No.

Because they weren't INVESTED in pro-Bush defense for 8 years as *you* have. They weren't Bush wonks, and the meaning is simple - their memory isn't as vivid and lively as your own. 8 years have erased what intimate feelings they had for Bush, and nothing you'll say about him will make them abandon a widely popular current Presidential candidate.

For them, Iraq is old news, today's news is Scalia.
This will have zero effect.
They. Don't. Care.

Posted by: Juicer at February 14, 2016 04:30 AM (7AlBN)

217 212
And, now, for something completely different.....went to a gun show today. It was less interesting than I'd hoped.



Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:23 AM (EzgxV)



Any 22LR ammo for sale at normal prices (like 4 or 5 cents@)? I
haven't seen anything less than 10 cents@ in 22 LR for years ... and 22
is great, but not at those prices.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:24 AM (zc3Db)



I was more looking at 9mm....which, for a n00b, was confusing enough.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:36 AM (EzgxV)

218 214 zombie. You are very wrong, and I'm assuming that this isn't THE zombie, because he/she would be smart enough to see the difference. Am I a Cruz Supporter, yes. I'm also from Texas so I know Of Cruz and trust him. Never met the guy, never worked on or with his campaign. And I'm certain my comment has not been poll tested since I just made it but you can be certain I will not be the only one to possibly sit out the choice between an all liberal Democrat general election. But thanks for the compliment. Cruz is running a superb campaign, nice to know I get my point across well enough to be his "shill."

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:37 AM (YwQCs)

219 I get cheap 22LR from Walmart and Dick's all the time. Must be a regional thing.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 04:38 AM (2HqwF)

220 213
Hey cooth!



Do you know frozen pipes?

Posted by: fluffy at February 14, 2016 04:26 AM (AfsKp)


I'm a lifelong Californian who only knows frozen pipes in theory. I suspect I'm going to learn once I leave this benighted state, but my current knowledge can only be described as hypothetical.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:38 AM (EzgxV)

221 Now, see, I am a Cruz supporter and will definitely vote for Cruz, but even I in all honesty perceive this comment as most likely made by someone in the employ of the Cruz campaign.

Not a "troll" or "moby," but more along the lines of a "shill." And I;m saying this as a Cruz voter!

Message to the Ted campaign, since I assume you're reading this: Up your shill-comment game. These arguments against Trump sound too poll-tested and rehearsed, and not like authentic blog comments.

I don't disagree with the strategy: I wince at its ineffectual execution.
Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:28 AM (jBuUi)

With the "lifelong Conservative" thing it almost looks like a parody.

Ted, 2008 called and asked to leave it's election memes alone.

Posted by: Juicer at February 14, 2016 04:39 AM (7AlBN)

222 I get cheap 22LR from Walmart and Dick's all the time. Must be a regional thing.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 04:38 AM (2HqwF)


You still find the federal 525 boxes at Walmart? The Walmart around here is always out of 22 even though the website always says that it's in stock.

I haven't checked Dicks but now that you mention it I'll give it a shot.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:40 AM (zc3Db)

223 214
208 I am a lifelong Conservative but after watching Trump
flip-flopping from issue to issue, acting exactly like a thin-skinned
Obama, shouting at people and calling them nasty, vile, and liars while
acting and doing the same things he's accusing them of. He has no proof
of any of the accusations he has made and acts like a petulant child
foaming at the mouth. In other words, he is a liberal Democrat
masquerading as a Conservative Republican. I'm 57 years old and have
voted in every Presidential election and am now considering sitting this
one out if Trump is the nominee, not because I want to destroy the
Establishment, which I do, but because a vote for Trump is no different
than a vote for Hillary or Sanders.

Posted by: Whippet



Now, see, I am a Cruz supporter and will definitely vote for Cruz,
but even I in all honesty perceive this comment as most likely made by
someone in the employ of the Cruz campaign.



Not a "troll" or "moby," but more along the lines of a "shill." And I;m saying this as a Cruz voter!



Message to the Ted campaign, since I assume you're reading this: Up
your shill-comment game. These arguments against Trump sound too
poll-tested and rehearsed, and not like authentic blog comments.



I don't disagree with the strategy: I wince at its ineffectual execution.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:28 AM (jBuUi)


^^^Ding! Zombie nails one. Every n00b from here out is likely a troll, moby, or shill.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:40 AM (EzgxV)

224 221 Juicer. See my response to Zombie above.
What are you two, paranoid? I'll be waiting for your apology.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:41 AM (YwQCs)

225 ^^^Ding! Zombie nails one. Every n00b from here out is likely a troll, moby, or shill.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:40 AM (EzgxV)


What about us??!

Posted by: Toadies and Flunkies at February 14, 2016 04:44 AM (zc3Db)

226 Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:37 AM

Well, if you are "a real person," and not a Cruz employee, then try to make arguments that don't sound like they came out of a focus-group session! We support the same guy, and are on the same side, so our disagreement, if one wants to call it that, is very minor. Cruz is running a mostly good campaign, but has slipped up a couple times (mostly stuff like the shame-mailer). I don't want him to lose any cred by trying the ol' comment-stuffing trick.

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 04:44 AM (jBuUi)

227 Yep, Federal Champion 525ct and Winchester 555ct. I always check when I'm at Walmart, which is like 3x a week. The Dick's is 2 mins away, so I'll often drop in there, too.

It's just luck of the draw. Might go a week without seeing anything, then one day there will be three boxes on the shelf and I'll grab one.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 04:46 AM (2HqwF)

228 Incidentally, can we get some measure of familiarity on blog posts along with the hash -- like one star for 10 posts, two stars for 100 posts, three stars for 1000 posts, eight stars for Sven? It would seem pretty straightforward....but, y'know, #TwoWeeks.....

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:46 AM (EzgxV)

229 By the way I've commented here sparingly for years. Enjoy reading rather than adding my two cents with the usually bright and witty commenters here, but apparently the class of people has changed recently.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:46 AM (YwQCs)

230 224
221 Juicer. See my response to Zombie above.

What are you two, paranoid? I'll be waiting for your apology.



Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:41 AM (YwQCs)


If you're not paranoid at this point, you're just stupid.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:48 AM (EzgxV)

231 Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 04:46 AM (2HqwF)

That's encouraging to hear. I'll check more. Thanks.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:48 AM (zc3Db)

232 Oh, and I'm an infrequent commenter and don't use a consistent user name, but I'm no troll or moby, either. :-)

I get the suspicion, cuz mobys suck, but some of us just don't comment except around elections. I've been reading Ace (and of course the magnificent comments) for a decade.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 04:50 AM (2HqwF)

233 Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:41 AM (YwQCs)

Don't be offended. cooth thinks everyone is a moby or troll. You haven't lived until cooth has accused you of being one.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:52 AM (zc3Db)

234 226 Zombie. You will lose supporters for Cruz if you accuse others of being in his employ and stuffing the comments section. Trumpeteers, as I call them, will hear it, spread it, and believe it because the truth means nothing to them. Geez, I'm a 57 year old grandmother who is a political junkie. I research my candidates and call it like I see it. If I feel the way I do then I'd say Ace's post was spot on.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:53 AM (YwQCs)

235 Trump is stuck at 1/3rd. W is still pretty popular in SC.
If Trump bleeds some support, he and Cruz will be almost neck and neck. That suits me fine.

I don't give a shit about Trump, outside of his utility as a hammer to beat the GOPe iver the head.

I don't want to spend my time defending W. We spent 8 years defending him, while he refused to defend himself coherently and we are still fighting his Amnesty bullshit to this day

He rolled up into a ball his second term while the MSM and the Dems kicked him half to death. At the end, we got TARP and Obama.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 14, 2016 04:54 AM (Nh5O0)

236 232
Oh, and I'm an infrequent commenter and don't use a consistent user name, but I'm no troll or moby, either. :-)



I get the suspicion, cuz mobys suck, but some of us just don't
comment except around elections. I've been reading Ace (and of course
the magnificent comments) for a decade.

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 04:50 AM (2HqwF)


Tell you what -- why don't you prove you're a great Ace fan by dropping enough into his tipjar to get a personalized mention? Maybe two large or better.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:54 AM (EzgxV)

237 Trumpeteers, as I call them, will hear it, spread it, and believe it because the truth means nothing to them.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:53 AM (YwQCs)


Now, that is certainly uncalled for, and particularly silly. Luckily, I can excuse you - being a 57 year old junkie and all ...

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:56 AM (zc3Db)

238 233
Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:41 AM (YwQCs)



Don't be offended. cooth thinks everyone is a moby or troll. You haven't lived until cooth has accused you of being one.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:52 AM (zc3Db)


You, I kinda like.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:57 AM (EzgxV)

239 You, I kinda like.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:57 AM (EzgxV)


I grew on you, huh?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:58 AM (zc3Db)

240 We have hot water flowing in the kitchen sink, but not cold. The pipe goes from the warm confines of the basement, travels through a crawl space for just a couple feet, then up to the kitchen.

I have a space heater going under the sink, but I don't think that is where the ice is. Looks like I have to go into the crawlspace.

I wanted to go for a hike, not thaw pipes. Call the wahmbulence.

Posted by: fluffy at February 14, 2016 05:00 AM (AfsKp)

241 237 ThePrimordialOrderedPair
Been attacked by the other side before but never my own. I may need to become a junkie by the time this primary season is over!

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 05:00 AM (YwQCs)

242 "Tell you what -- why don't you prove you're a great Ace fan by dropping enough into his tipjar to get a personalized mention? Maybe two large or better."

I've given probably $200 to Ace over the years. Also a couple hundred to the DD. Oh, and last year, who was it that got suspended from his job for a bit and there was a GoFundMe? Forgot who it was, but chipped in.

Not really in it for recognition or glory, but I probably should hit the tipjar soon because this is my favorite site. Maybe when I get a raise soon..

Posted by: Fire doesn't melt steel at February 14, 2016 05:01 AM (2HqwF)

243 239
You, I kinda like.



Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 04:57 AM (EzgxV)



I grew on you, huh?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 04:58 AM (zc3Db)


Yup, sorta like toenail fungus.....

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 05:03 AM (EzgxV)

244 Zombie, I see nothing in the comments that indicate a Cruz campaign at work. Trump invites those very reactions automatically. In 24 hours - literally - he went from "let all the Syrian refugees in" to "halt all Muslim immigration!".
Biggest single day flip-flop in history.

Ace used that very example in Friday's podcast, btw...

Is Ace a Cruz campaign front?

Posted by: TexasJew at February 14, 2016 05:04 AM (Nh5O0)

245 240
We have hot water flowing in the kitchen sink, but not cold. The pipe
goes from the warm confines of the basement, travels through a crawl
space for just a couple feet, then up to the kitchen.



I have a space heater going under the sink, but I don't think that
is where the ice is. Looks like I have to go into the crawlspace.



I wanted to go for a hike, not thaw pipes. Call the wahmbulence.

Posted by: fluffy at February 14, 2016 05:00 AM (AfsKp)


I was all set to try and coach you through this, when it dawned on me that (1) you are not too stupid to reason from base principles, and (2) you have far more experience with this than I. My best contribution would be to stay the hell out of your way while you solved this.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 14, 2016 05:07 AM (EzgxV)

246 Been attacked by the other side before but never my own.

Well ... you weren't too shy about lashing out at any Trump supporters. It's not a big deal but you should just keep that in mind.

Everyone here has been attacked by people here, all on the same side, at one point or another. I can't even begin to think of any political discussions where people don't get attacked by those on "the same side" every now and again. That's the nature of politics and discussions of it.

I may need to become a junkie by the time this primary season is over!

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 05:00 AM (YwQCs)


BarkyCare has you covered for that!

Personally, I find nothing overly stressful or outrageous about this primary season. All the truly important battles were fought (and lost) in 2008 and 2012. This is all just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, now, which hit the iceberg a few years ago and is almost fully under.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 14, 2016 05:08 AM (zc3Db)

247 Never had a frozen pipe. I don't think we have seen much weather below zero in our decade plus living here. We have -12F this AM.

Fortunately, I had my best cold weather gear laid out last night.

Posted by: fluffy at February 14, 2016 05:12 AM (AfsKp)

248 244 TexasJew. Trump flip-flops on his flip-flip flops. One day Cruz is a liar and nasty guy, accusing him of trying to sabbotage Carson's campaign in Iowa, then said he'd definitely consider him for VP, then says he's not going to go negative any longer, then threatens Cruz with a lawsuit if he doesn't stop the negative ads. It's like he's suffering a daily short-term memory loss!

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 05:17 AM (YwQCs)

249 Bedtime is calling. It's been interesting though!

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 05:25 AM (YwQCs)

250 Sure Trump said some crazy things before - but going after George Bush was a step too far! Trump to me looks a lot like Boris Yeltsin. The Soviet Union fell because the RUssians were like "we're sick of supporting all these losers. THis empire is costing too much." That's basically Trumps message. The internal (immigration) and external empire is too expensive. That's why the neocon imperialists like David French are disgusted by Trump. But ordinary people don't support empire. The oridnary Brit did not support the empire. The ordinary russian didn't care about cuba. And the ordinary republican voter doesn't want more wars and isn't invested in defending the old wars.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 05:35 AM (QKo2t)

251 R.I.P. Antonin Scalia

Posted by: JROD at February 14, 2016 05:43 AM (wnwJC)

252 I tell you what I've learned from the last 15 years. The Middle East needs ruthless dictators who rule with an iron fist and slaughter any opposition. The population is nucking futs, incapable of anything close to Western style democratic self-government, rule of law, principles of the Enlightenment.

Back during Gulf War I, I was a young buck in my 20s, and I was mad George H.W. Bush and his "wise men" for not finishing the job. Guess what, they were right. What became W's senior advisers were the old man's juniors, the young bucks. They were itching to go and finish off Sadam, but the old men wouldn't let them.

They got their opportunity with W. And they were wrong. Dead Wrong. They though they could make a model democratic state out Iraq. The old men knew that was a pipe dream. And they were right.

And O and his idiots completed the fuck-up by doing the worst possible thing, pulling out. Going in was a huge fuck-up, but pulling out was an even bigger one.

That's what American foreign policy has been since Bush I, nothing but doing the worst possible thing, each and every time.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at February 14, 2016 05:43 AM (dvuhZ)

253 I'm praying your right. It does seem Trump supporters are more passionate than others except for Bernie's.

Posted by: Skip at February 14, 2016 05:55 AM (BkhW6)

254 Success! Cold water is flowing.

Posted by: fluffy at February 14, 2016 05:56 AM (AfsKp)

255 One thing to remember. Trump has 35%? Support from Republicans.

I don't think this will help get him to 50%. Not that he needs it now. But he will eventually.

Trump had plenty of issues to bash W. See #83. Add Part D to that too.

He chose poorly. Illustrating a fear of many here and elsewhere.

Posted by: Golfman at February 14, 2016 05:59 AM (48QDY)

256 Outside of Hillary, I don't think anyone in recent history would use the position to enrich themselves more than Trump.

Posted by: Rbastid at February 14, 2016 02:35 AM (XwTyM)


Barry's done a pretty splendiferous job of enriching himself as preezy.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 06:10 AM (Ix+HS)

257 fluffy if you have to let cold water just drip to keep flowing.
I'm worried for me, just not at home.

Posted by: Skip at February 14, 2016 06:11 AM (BkhW6)

258 Trump is finished?

Again?

How many times does this make?

And

Good Morning to everyone who is awake.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 06:13 AM (WVsWD)

259 Bill Clinton caused 9/11 in my opinion, not Bush a few months into office.

Posted by: AnnaS at February 14, 2016 02:36 AM (P+I7L)


Nine months. And after nine months, Bush didn't know about the Gorelick Wall? If not for 9/11, would Bush have ever known about the Gorelick Wall?

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 06:14 AM (Ix+HS)

260 If it was such a bad idea why did Congress authorize it?

Posted by: Adriane the Political Critic ... at February 14, 2016 02:42 AM (AoK0a)


You mean 'why did the UniParty authorize it?'.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 06:17 AM (Ix+HS)

261 Morning horde. Making breakfast and having a beer. Bad day yesterday.

Posted by: Infidel at February 14, 2016 06:18 AM (jiDCu)

262 I'm beginning to see some serious parallels between Agent Orange's Make America Great campaign and Super Patriot Perot suffering Bush Derangement. What next? Will Agent Orange say Boosh tries to slip somebody into Evanka's delivery room like the Boosh infiltration of Super Perot wedding?

Previously, even earlier today when asked my opinion of Agent Orange by those who were hoping for a negative comment, I'd just dodge politely with something like "Well he would be interesting to watch", or " At least he pisses on some of the right people".

I'm with Ace. Don't think I'll be that generous anymore.

Posted by: Color Me Not So Orange Anymore at February 14, 2016 06:18 AM (ASwZV)

263 Good Morning to everyone who is awake.
Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 06:13 AM (WVsWD)

****

What about those of us who are not?! Sleepist!

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 06:19 AM (IRqa0)

264 Seems the GOP should have a nominee who is somewhat distinguishable from Rachel Maddow or any of the other wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth, Code Pink leftists on HuffPo or Vox.

Trump revealed his true, liberal, Hillary and Planned Parenthood loving, lower Manhattan self when he accused President Bush, VP Cheney, et.al., of "lying" us into war in Iraq and for responsibility for 9-11.

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 06:19 AM (QolCq)

265 What about those of us who are not?! Sleepist!

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 14, 2016 06:19 AM (IRqa0)

Good Morning to those that are asleep too. A very Good Morning to those that can type while they are asleep.

There Fixed.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 06:21 AM (WVsWD)

266 "Trump revealed his true, ......................"

Umm No. He said this for quite awhile now. This is not new. What is new is that it has gotten some attention.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 06:23 AM (WVsWD)

267 Not sure what else I could do but my opinion has hardened in Cruz's case, Trump can't be nominated.
p.s. I think I saw a pussycat a watching over me

Posted by: Skip at February 14, 2016 06:24 AM (BkhW6)

268 "I was wondering who the American was that still thought the 2003 Iraq invasion was a good idea. Nice to finally meet you."

***

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

But it doesn't justify, or excuse, calling the man in the arena a "liar".

(See, Theodore Roosevelt quote about same)

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 06:26 AM (QolCq)

269 This Post is why I lurk here.

Posted by: bopiddy at February 14, 2016 06:28 AM (9HJf4)

270 With all due respect, I don't think this bothers the voters nearly as much as it bothers the bloggers.

Trump can be nominated and if that happens he will win. What happens after he wins is anyone's guess.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 06:31 AM (WVsWD)

271 214. Speaking of shills.

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 06:32 AM (QolCq)

272 Just reading this the Trump supporters here are Truthers as well.

Good grief, go back to your alex jones radio show idiots.

Posted by: cvb at February 14, 2016 06:33 AM (b1lhY)

273 If Hildabeast's crimes, which get longer every day, don't bother leftists then people will vote for anyone. Remember Stalin is still loved by some people in Russia.

Posted by: Skip at February 14, 2016 06:35 AM (BkhW6)

274 I always think of that Sam Kinison scene where he says "Is she right ? ......well is she right ?"
I always try to give our President the benefit of the doubt. Whether its Bush, Obama, Clinton, mostly because they are privy to information I don't have.
But.
I don't think Bush lied.
But, I think he was being overly cautious in his words and deeds, so as not to offend and set off a possible powderkeg.
The surge was the moment I think he genuinely realized all the forces allied against the U.S.
So.
Trump is right in his criticism, Bush was too tentative and the blame falls on him as CIC and President.
Period.

Posted by: bopiddy at February 14, 2016 06:36 AM (9HJf4)

275 Trump will just take us down the slow road to Sanders. Education is key. How many people can we educate between now and election day? They need to be taught the Constitution!

Posted by: Infidel at February 14, 2016 06:38 AM (jiDCu)

276 Defending the dismal record of GWB is wishing for more of the same Uniparty nonsense.

There are still strong believers in the Bushes as evidenced by the party loyalists stacked in last night's audience.

Don't cave to the donor class because you hate Trump.

Posted by: Valiant at February 14, 2016 06:40 AM (2bqlb)

277 Exactly right, Ace. I was willing to give the outsider a chance, but he really showed his ass on that one. I was stunned that he would talk badly about George that way. Shame on him.

Posted by: goon at February 14, 2016 06:41 AM (gy5kE)

278

I can't wait to appoint Huma to the SCOTUS...

*hic*

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 14, 2016 06:42 AM (CU2RV)

279 Trump accusing the USA of lying about WMDs to go to war, just threw all our allies under the bus, gave anti-American enemies a very useful soundbite/recruitment tool, and boosted the far crank lefts attacks on Republicans. He did all this to get in a cheap shot at Jeb Bush, a guy who is polling 5th.

Trumps temperament and judgment are dangerous and erratic.

Posted by: Portlandon at February 14, 2016 06:43 AM (Y+2sJ)

280 I admit, I supported the Iraq war. I was pissed enough from 9/11 that I didn't really care which Muslim nation we took it out on. In hindsight, I'm more angry with Bush on how he fought the war rather than the choice of target..ultimately, I wasn't interested in nation-building, I just wanted to break things. Of course, now it turns out that the whole thing was a Pandora's box. I defended Bush up until the 2006 midterm debacle, then I decided that if he wasn't going to defend himself, then I wouldn't either. I blame him for the rise of Obama and the fracturing of the GOP...I'm not sure we can recover.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at February 14, 2016 06:43 AM (Y0FCw)

281 I saw 1 constitutionalist at the debate. We need to at least have to gain back some of the decorum of the office. I'm appalled the JEF couldn't even wear a tie tonight. He is a disgrace.

Posted by: Infidel at February 14, 2016 06:44 AM (jiDCu)

282 Again, ace is hallucinating, casting and projecting his confirmation bias. This won't hurt Trump one bit. He said the exact same thing in October, using the exact same phrasing. Nobody cared then, nobody cares now.

I believe attacking Bush because 9/11 happened "on his watch" is a pretty unfair and even harmful, dangerous tactic - it could have happened on anyone's watch, and the enemies don't really care if the pres is a paleocon, neocon, liberal or even a Jihadi Muslim (as long as he isn't of the current terrorists' clan, but in that case there are another 1001 clans who will still plot to attack you).

But, frankly, this is an election, and people just don't care when it comes to brawls between the Gladiators.

They just want the strongest and most potent Gladiator to win, so that they can be better protected by a better Guard. So...Trump will only benefit from attacking the Bushes. We are not invested in the Bush Dynasty. We defended them while the liberals attacked them relentlessly, because liberals made us the target and Bush their mace. We defended OURSELVES. The Bush dynasty didn't do us much good. We owe them nothing unto themselves. Yes, we can tolerate them being derided. ace can't, but he doesn't understand he's the very small minority here. Confirmation bias in the blogger-twitter echo-chamber doesn't help either.

Posted by: Juicer at February 14, 2016 06:47 AM (7AlBN)

283 I've been reading your blog for several years now without comment. However, I do see you lean further to the right then myself and many who do read it. With that being said, I think you're wrong on this. I think it's going to be President Trump.

Posted by: Linda at February 14, 2016 06:48 AM (bnIVX)

284 Also, I'm not sure that anything can damage Trump in the eyes of his True Believers.

The Scalia death was one of the things I feared most. of course he dies while Ginsberg drools on.....I can only hope that McConnell will run out the clock, and that the GOP President...whoever that is...will make a wise nomination. If Hillary or Bernie wins, we're fucked anyway.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at February 14, 2016 06:49 AM (Y0FCw)

285 Excellent points all around. Well done. *boink* star.

Omitted from analysis is how Trump's comment is viewed by disaffected Democrat voters with two very poor choices who know in their heart that Bush 2 lied "to get us into Iraq."

As bad as that sounds to a Republican non Trump supporter it's golden to Democrat with nowhere to go.

Posted by: bour3 at February 14, 2016 06:49 AM (5x3+2)

286 As bad as that sounds to a Republican non Trump supporter it's golden to Democrat with nowhere to go.

Posted by: bour3 at February 14, 2016 06:49 AM (5x3+2)


Valid point.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 06:56 AM (Ix+HS)

287 When the Republican frontrunner is using talking points that could be found on any protest sign at a G8 protest, Occupy Movement, Code Pink, or Euro anti-American protest, there is something fundamentally wrong. If you defend it, you should really evaluate if you should be voting in the democrat primary. What Trump did tonight was a complete flaming garbage dumpster fire. Those who should know better are roasting hot dogs in the flames and asking the far left to pass the mustard.

We truly are in bizzaro world here.

Posted by: Portlandon at February 14, 2016 06:56 AM (Y+2sJ)

288 285 Excellent points all around. Well done. *boink* star.

Omitted from analysis is how Trump's comment is viewed by disaffected Democrat voters with two very poor choices who know in their heart that Bush 2 lied "to get us into Iraq."

As bad as that sounds to a Republican non Trump supporter it's golden to Democrat with nowhere to go.
Posted by: bour3 at February 14, 2016 06:49 AM (5x3+2)

So Trump beats the socialists in the general.

Yay?

Posted by: Golfman at February 14, 2016 06:58 AM (48QDY)

289 "We truly are in bizzaro world here."

Yeah the repukes are really bizarro. Especially that fella in the Senate that said impeachment was a no go. Who would of thought that the opposition party
would quit opposing?

Truly bizarre.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 06:59 AM (WVsWD)

290 No one wants a bitter, hateful leader. That is what trump is.

Posted by: Infidel at February 14, 2016 07:01 AM (jiDCu)

291 Sadly, I don't think this will hurt Trump all that much. I think a lot of conservatives have worn weary of the Bush Doctrine, and "Bush Lied!" is simply accepted as shorthand for Bush Fucked Up, even by those who probably don't think he lied about anything.

The problem with leaving a guy like Trump, who is as much an avatar and cult of personality that Obama ever was, is where does a disillusioned Trump supporter go, and what would it take to bring about such disillusionment? Short of softening on immigration, I don't see a mass exodus of strongly committed Trump supporters to any of the remaining candidates.

Posted by: holygoat at February 14, 2016 07:02 AM (ZgI/r)

292 285 "As bad as that sounds to a Republican non Trump supporter it's golden to Democrat with nowhere to go."

***

Great. A Trumpian "Big Tent" loaded with delusional, Low Info, White America Hating, Welfare Addicts.

That's sure to get The Great Wall of Trump built.

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 07:02 AM (QolCq)

293 I think Trump's intention here was simple: Once he makes GWB the debate topic, Jeb is toast. Even if Jeb said nothing in response, Jeb's choices were, broadly, Defend GWB (and the audience sees that all Bushes are the same--stop the dynasty!) or Attack GWB (= betrayal of his own brother! what a cad!). Lose/lose.

Posted by: m at February 14, 2016 07:03 AM (S/1cF)

294 When the Republican frontrunner is using talking points that could be found on any protest sign at a G8 protest, Occupy Movement, Code Pink, or Euro anti-American protest, there is something fundamentally wrong.

Well said.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 14, 2016 07:03 AM (w4NZ8)

295 We truly are in bizzaro world here.

Posted by: Portlandon at February 14, 2016 06:56 AM (Y+2sJ)


This is the century of Bizarro World.

Embrace the suck now and enjoy it while you can; it's only going to get worse from here on out. More so now that Scalia is dead. Because I'm sure The Turtle will stay true to his conservative principles and not approve a lefty douchebag to the Supreme Court. Amirite?

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:04 AM (Ix+HS)

296 The Tree of Liberty is calling. She's thirsty.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 07:05 AM (WVsWD)

297 No, I disagree. Trump did not hurt himself for the simple reason that at this point most people, even those who voted for him, do not care about GWB who in the last two years of his presidency disappointed them mightily.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 07:09 AM (0lF3x)

298 The Tree of Liberty is calling. She's thirsty.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois Dump Trump! Luze with Cruz! at February 14, 2016 07:05 AM (WVsWD)


The Tree of Liberty is desiccated right now. Not even a flood or a graft will help restore it. The only way forward is to plant a new orchard, after clearing the land of the old one by a massive, EPA unapproved, burn off.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:10 AM (Ix+HS)

299 In 2003 I would've been indignant if anyone said that about GW Bush.

Since then, not so much anymore.

Too many lies and too many questions.

So, no, saying Bush lied us into Iraq doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother others.

And that makes me wonder about how much attention they've been paying to events.

You all still have a vestige of loyalty towards the GOPe. Oh you whine and moan about this or that but you still want to believe that they didn't screw you as bad as they did or as bad as the Democrats did or would.

YOU'RE WRONG.

And until you all face that possibility, the GOPe still has a chance to suck you back into supporting it for just long enough to complete whatever plan they have going.

Me. I gave up hope a long time ago.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger 1.0 and All That at February 14, 2016 07:10 AM (Xo1Rt)

300 Trump defended Planned Parenthood again last night for its "good work" on women's health.

Next, he'll remind us that Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler invented the Autobahn, the VW Bug, and liquid fueled rockets.

Nobody's all bad or all good. But it is morally self evident that monstrous evil cancels out any good.

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 07:10 AM (QolCq)

301 Because I'm sure The Turtle will stay true to his conservative principles and not approve a lefty douchebag to the Supreme Court. Amirite?
Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:04 AM (Ix+HS)

----------------

I have little to no faith that McConnell will stand strong. Obama's gotten everything he's wanted since the repubs got the House and Senate.

Posted by: Portlandon at February 14, 2016 07:11 AM (Y+2sJ)

302 I saw some of the debate highlights (Or maybe I should call them "lowlights") on Legal Insurrection.
What a nasty debate.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 14, 2016 07:11 AM (w4NZ8)

303 I wish I didn't agree, RickZ.

Posted by: Infidel at February 14, 2016 07:12 AM (jiDCu)

304 299. "You all still have a vestige of loyalty towards the GOPe. "

We still have a vestige of loyalty to facts and truth.

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 07:13 AM (QolCq)

305 It's funny how Ace responds just like Jeb Bush responds. He doesn't defend the war, he defends the voters who once supported the war. "HOW DARE TRUMP CRITICIZE THE VOTERS WHO WERE LIED INTO WAR!" That's not far off from Ace's argument. OK it's more like "TRUMP WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH SPEAKING TRUTH TO THE VOTERS ABOUT GEORGE BUSH!" Which kind of tacitly concedes that Trump is right. I love how Trump is kicking the neocons ass and the best that can come back with is "The voters are so stupid they won't let you get away with this!"

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 07:14 AM (QKo2t)

306 I will be glad when this is all over. It will be interesting to see who will not vote for whom.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Blah, blah,blah at February 14, 2016 07:14 AM (WVsWD)

307 It was nasty, Fenolon.

Posted by: Infidel at February 14, 2016 07:15 AM (jiDCu)

308 "13 Nayden Broad-- you're speaking of the stalwarts.

As a sometime Trump supporter myself, I think I can say that there are Trump supporters who have not fully bought in, and for whom stuff like this is a no-go zone.
Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:10 AM (dciA+)"

Those for whom this is a no-go zone are known as the establishment.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 07:15 AM (0lF3x)

309 We still have a vestige of loyalty to facts and truth.

Posted by: Raspail at February 14, 2016 07:13 AM (QolCq)


That and $4.95 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:16 AM (Ix+HS)

310 Trump is an equal opportunity attacker.
He attacks everyone.
This is a good thing.
The people he attacks are all grown ups.
Let them defend their positions.
I see Cruz is starting to rise to the occasion.
These criticisms expose the targets ability to defend themselves.
Without a bunch of Brocks, et al, to help out a candidate who exposes their real personalty in one candid exchange.
This service that Trump provides is invaluable, regardless of where he ends up as a candidate.

Posted by: bopiddy at February 14, 2016 07:16 AM (9HJf4)

311 It's truly remarkable that 13 years after the war Rubio and Bush are still up there defending GWB policies. Meanwhile GWB is off mixing his watercolors on his ranch. He has better things to do. He never really cared that much in the first place.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 07:16 AM (QKo2t)

312 It's truly remarkable that 13 years after the war Rubio and Bush are still up there defending GWB policies. Meanwhile GWB is off mixing his watercolors on his ranch. He has better things to do. He never really cared that much in the first place.
Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 07:16 AM (QKo2t)

Crap

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 14, 2016 07:18 AM (DUoqb)

313 Crap

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 14, 2016 07:18 AM (DUoqb)


I'd be more willing to defend GWBush now if GWBush had been more willing to defend himself then, when he was preezy. But he listened to the eGOPs, in the personage of Karl Rove, and didn't defend himself then, so why should I bother to defend him now?

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:23 AM (Ix+HS)

314 I'd be more willing to defend GWBush now if GWBush had been more willing to defend himself then, when he was preezy. But he listened to the eGOPs, in the personage of Karl Rove, and didn't defend himself then, so why should I bother to defend him now?
Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:23 AM (Ix+HS)

Because the truth matters and crazy's do us not good. President Bush was many things but not loving this Country and blaming him for 9/11 and some of the other crazy shit some people are saying is wrong.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 14, 2016 07:26 AM (DUoqb)

315 "32 >>>Is there anyone who was with Trump, but now isn't with Trump because of this?

in case you haven't noticed, I've been supportive of trump as my #2 (and sometimes, secretly, my #1).

So, yeah.

Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:22 AM (dciA+)"

---------

So whatcha gonna do now? Who will you champion?

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 07:26 AM (0lF3x)

316 I did get a laugh, though when Rubio said, "How how does he (Cruz) know what I said on Univision; He doesn't even speak Spanish and Cruz answered him in Spanish.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 14, 2016 07:28 AM (w4NZ8)

317 The government lies to us. That's no surprise. Trump is a buffoon. That's no surprise either.

Posted by: freaked at February 14, 2016 07:28 AM (BO/km)

318 haven't read through all of this and honestly still too sick to give it much attention.

i would like to address one aspect I've found that is affecting my vote, which you can take in any way you want, i don't care.

right from the start criticism of trump included criticism of his supporters in a way that was wholly personal. thoat kind of thing happens but typically becomes less personal and more just regular arguments over time.

not in this case. the personal - not political - attacks continue. and you're goddamned right I'll return that.

but that was an amazingly. bad fuckup. see this:

"Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now."

yeah, that's pretty much how i view my "fellow conservatives" now. it's not something you can repair now. if it isn't trump I'll be voting, not so much against whoever the gop candidate is, but against you.

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at February 14, 2016 07:29 AM (Cq0oW)

319 Because the truth matters and crazy's do us not good. President Bush was many things but not loving this Country and blaming him for 9/11 and some of the other crazy shit some people are saying is wrong.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 14, 2016 07:26 AM (DUoqb)

Thanks, saved me a bunch of typing.

Posted by: BignJames at February 14, 2016 07:30 AM (x9c8r)

320 I did not vote for Bush (I was a voting Democrat them) I didn't support the Iraq war but I never thought Bush "lied' to get us into it. I find it very disturbing that Trump would say such a thing.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 14, 2016 07:30 AM (w4NZ8)

321 I did get a laugh, though when Rubio said, "How how does he (Cruz) know what I said on Univision; He doesn't even speak Spanish and Cruz answered him in Spanish.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 14, 2016 07:28 AM (w4NZ8
----------
Yeah. That weasel Rubio got his ass handed to him on that exchange.
Cruz was right. Rubio says something in Spanish, and another in english.

Posted by: Portlandon at February 14, 2016 07:32 AM (Y+2sJ)

322 Nood EMT

Posted by: NaCly Dog at February 14, 2016 07:32 AM (u82oZ)

323
Thanks, saved me a bunch of typing.
Posted by: BignJames at February 14, 2016 07:30 AM (x9c8r)

In order to make ti past the the new 11 months I make need a higher dose if my Blood pressure pills and a recall to Active Duty so I don't stroke out or go Postal. ( and yes I am hoping for that recall- will take my mind of all this shit) Sigh

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 14, 2016 07:33 AM (DUoqb)

324 Because the truth matters and crazy's do us not good.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 14, 2016 07:26 AM (DUoqb)


Not trying to be an argumentative ass here, but does the Truth matter anymore? I used to think it matters. Today? Not so much.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:35 AM (Ix+HS)

325 Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.

W did not lie about WMDs to get us into Iraq.

Trump sounded like Michael Moore last night. He has been my third choice behind Rubio and Cruz, but last night's bullshit was disgusting.

Posted by: Throat Wobbler Mangrove at February 14, 2016 07:36 AM (S8W0R)

326 Ah, but we're not Sideshow Don's "target demographic" anymore. He hooked people with anger - "he's saying things in public that I've been saying in private for years! Finally, somebody who understands me!!". And the True Believers among them are a lot like PaulBots from past elections: they have no idea what he's really saying, but the love the way he's saying it.
So, now he's free to expand his chosen audience to the disaffected Democrat voter, the closet Liberal who doesn't want to go all-in socialist with Bernie and doesn't like Kankles 'cause who the hell does but doesn't want to give up on his beloved Big Government.
Watch closely. The wheels are starting to come off this thing. Even Trump can't juggle but so many running chainsaws at one time.

Posted by: antisocialist at February 14, 2016 07:42 AM (cDs+4)

327 Blaming Bush for 9/11 is perfectly appropriate. Bush said no racial profiling in June 2001. He could have had the airports profliling all the Arab males. He had the reports that AQ was going to attack. Mohammed Atta was not hard to spot. But Bush was PC BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11. There is one thing nobody will ever be forgiven, and that's racism. You can be forgiven 9/11 or Iraq War but racism is utterly beyond the pale. That's what Jeb and Ryan and Boehner still think, they said Trump was beyond the pale for banning Muslims. We still think like that. Only Trump is willing to say that 9/11 was the fault of PC orthodoxy, the same orthodoxy that still exists. Rubio proposed the gangof8 days after the Tsarnaevs attackted the Boston marathon, that is how indestructible the PC consensus was and still is. But apparently Trump will be destroyed for telling the truth about George Bush and 9/11, LOL.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 07:45 AM (QKo2t)

328 You notice nobody ever disagrees with Trump? Nobody ever says "But McCain was a war hero!" Not really. Instead they always say that somebody else will punish him, somebody stupider and more irrational. We're still waiting for the truly stupid and slow to punish Trump.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 07:54 AM (QKo2t)

329 Bush said no racial profiling in June 2001.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 07:45 AM (QKo2t)


After 9/11, Bush gave us the execrable 'islam is the religion of peace' bullshit. Bullshit, I might, we're still paying for a decade and a half later.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 07:58 AM (Ix+HS)

330 If 9/11 were unstoppable, like a hurricane or earthquake, then GWB is obviously not responsible. But obviously it was stoppable. It would have taken a little racial profiling, that's all. So all the people who say GWB had nothing to do with 9/11 are also opposed to profiling. Globalization is a force of nature, it can't be stopped. 9/11 is just another phenomenon of globalization, like Chinese t-shirts or Mexican peasants at Home Depot. Don't fight the inevitable, it's not cool.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 08:05 AM (QKo2t)

331 Standing athwart history, shouting "there's nothing you can do! Don't bother!"

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 08:07 AM (QKo2t)

332 Trump kicked butt...what were you watching?
And he won every post debate poll huuugggghhh!

Posted by: gonzotx at February 14, 2016 08:07 AM (QD9b6)

333 I remember watching Bill Kristol say that Romney should run ads in Ohio featuring Ahmedinajad. Truly a man with his finger on the pulse of the voter. That's basically what the "Trump has really gone to far this time!" amounts too. All these people I've never met are going to agree with me!

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 08:10 AM (QKo2t)

334 "He seems like the petty type of guy (like someone currently in office) who would sic the DoJ on those he doesn't like or those who are competing with his business. He'll funnel projects or deals towards his own holdings and be the corrupt POL that everyone claimed Cheney was."

---------

The media will be watching his every move and reporting breathlessly on every person Invited into the White House. There will be none of the covering up that goes on now.

There will be leaks galore from DOJ every day on every minor directive requiring the bastards to behave which will be presented as interference.

A complete reversal happens on January 21.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 08:17 AM (0lF3x)

335 If Ace thinks that 80% of Republicans respect Bush, I think he's just fundamentally wrong about that. You might like the stockbroker who got you into that stock at $50, he might be a great guy, but you never want to see his face again after you sell it for a loss at $5. That's GWB.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 08:18 AM (QKo2t)

336 "Remember Stalin is still loved by some people in Russia."

-------

Just in Russia? Try New Hampshire and everywhere else Sanders wins.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 08:19 AM (0lF3x)

337 Eh.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the first attack on the WTC-

during Clinton's years

was, in fact, an operation funded by Saddam hussein and his security network.

Of that there is no doubt.


Based on what now looks like weak evidence, Bush went after Iraq.

At the time, it probably looked strong enough to act on. especially, given a regime that probably had WMDs based on the intelligence they had-

and who had previously attacked the WTC.


Where Bush fucked up massively, was buying into the islam as a religion of peace horseshit and-

trying to nation-build a people with a 7th century mindset w/o destroying that 7th century mindset ie. islam.

Which no one really wanted anyway.


He should've bombed the place back to the stone age

then told Colin Powell to GFH when he said we needed to rebuild Iraq.

That was a mistake and that is on W's head.

But lied into war?

Nope.




However, W damaged himself domestically by never fighting back against the Left's Lies-

so a slot of LIVs and Dims believe them.

Trump just waved in a lot of Dims and independents

and we have a lot of open primaries ahead.

Did he offset the damage from last night with those voters?

We'll see.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 14, 2016 08:20 AM (KUa85)

338 It doesn't matter if Bush lied. His metnal sstate doesn't really matter. He was in over his head. Lots of smart people before the war said, OK, nuclear program costs this much. Saddam only gets this much from ilegal oil sales. Therefore Saddam is broke. He can't have a nuclear program. And remember, Hans Blix visited all the sites before the war. So we knew even before the first tank rolled into Iraq.

Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 08:23 AM (QKo2t)

339 17 I used to defend Bush once upon a time. While I believe he went to war with Iraq with good intentions, his fuckups from that point on is what gave us Obama. I think there's also a level of Bush fatigue factor that will result in a lot of the voters not being too off put by what Trump said and simply won't give a shit. Honestly, over the years I went from avidly supporting Bush to being meh, to now wishing all the Bushes would just fucking disappear.

Well said - best comment in the thread.

Posted by: jacke@gmail.com at February 14, 2016 08:25 AM (i8Shl)

340 W didn't lie us into the Iraq war, but I believe he was fishing for a reason to finish Sadam.

Regardless, W was a terrible president. 9/11 happened on his watch, period. The deficit. Thinking that creating yet another agency was the answer for that disaster instead of facing down PC nonsense in some measure.

I have friends that still defend him because, I think, it's difficult to admit when we're wrong. He sucked. He set the table for barky. creating DHS...? Had barky been prez, he would've done the same thing.

Pathetic

Posted by: Cooldawg at February 14, 2016 08:26 AM (8SeI1)

341 The SCOTUS vacancy is too important to leave in the hands of a liberal like Trump. God only knows who that guy would nominate.

Posted by: Reginald Schlong at February 14, 2016 08:36 AM (9FNhu)

342 274 I always think of that Sam Kinison scene where he says "Is she right ? ......well is she right ?"
I always try to give our President the benefit of the doubt. Whether its Bush, Obama, Clinton, mostly because they are privy to information I don't have.
But.
"I don't think Bush lied.
But, I think he was being overly cautious in his words and deeds, so as not to offend and set off a possible powderkeg.
The surge was the moment I think he genuinely realized all the forces allied against the U.S.
So.
Trump is right in his criticism, Bush was too tentative and the blame falls on him as CIC and President.
Period.
Posted by: bopiddy at February 14, 2016 06:36 AM (9HJf4)"

--------

Watching the attacks on Bush during his second term without a murmur of protest from him or anyone on his side was really demoralizing.

As for what went wrong in Iraq, as soon as Bremmer was appointed as administrator failure was inevitable.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 08:36 AM (0lF3x)

343 The SCOTUS vacancy is too important to leave in the hands of a liberal like Trump. God only knows who that guy would nominate.

Posted by: Reginald Schlong at February 14, 2016 08:36 AM (9FNhu)


You're worried about Trump and a (possible) future SCOTUS nomination? Worry about Bitch McConnell and Mirror Universe Paul Ryan NOW.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 08:37 AM (Ix+HS)

344 I consider George W Bush an American Hero. I'm also considering Ted Cruz

Posted by: Rick554 at February 14, 2016 08:39 AM (zjJe7)

345 "9/11 were unstoppable, like a hurricane or earthquake, then GWB is obviously not responsible. But obviously it was stoppable. It would have taken a little racial profiling, that's all. So all the people who say GWB had nothing to do with 9/11 are also opposed to profiling. Globalization is a force of nature, it can't be stopped. 9/11 is just another phenomenon of globalization, like Chinese t-shirts or Mexican peasants at Home Depot. Don't fight the inevitable, it's not cool.
Posted by: bjk at February 14, 2016 08:05 AM (QKo2t)"

-----------

Amen to that.

Bush had enormous political capital after 9/11 he could have instigated profiling but he decided to be politically correct instead. And here we are.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 08:39 AM (0lF3x)

346 Whoo! That's some post-graduate, school of ed-level, metacognition. Spot on, Piaget would be impressed.

Posted by: Farmer Bob at February 14, 2016 08:43 AM (sqpGi)

347 ...Bush had enormous political capital...

And he invested it in advancing his tribe's interests instead of the interests of the people who elected him.

Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 08:43 AM (CRXed)

348 "You're worried about Trump and a (possible) future SCOTUS nomination? Worry about Bitch McConnell and Mirror Universe Paul Ryan NOW.
Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2016 08:37 AM (Ix+HS)"

They will do as they are bid by the establishment and Obama will get his pick. I will eat my hat if they stand firm until the next president.

Posted by: Decaf at February 14, 2016 08:44 AM (0lF3x)

349 ... too important to leave in the hands of a liberal ...

Since Jimmy Carter the only difference is whether you get a Judge who is out of the closet or one that is still in the closet. Gheys are noted for reading the US Constitution in ways Straights find peculiar. Also in closet gheys (Roberts) seem to be easily influenced by liberal arguments.

Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 08:50 AM (CRXed)

350 I disagree with Ace. I think Trump delivered the coup de grace on Jeb last night.

Posted by: Myiq2xu at February 14, 2016 08:51 AM (5fSr7)

351 341 The SCOTUS vacancy is too important to leave in the hands of a liberal like Trump. God only knows who that guy would nominate.
Posted by: Reginald Schlong at February 14, 2016 08:36 AM (9FNhu)

Yeah, I know.

A brute POTUS like Trump might appoint someone as bad as Kennedy or Roberts, right?

Posted by: Juicer at February 14, 2016 08:56 AM (7AlBN)

352 All in for Cruz. I would like to find out if he's unelectable for real vs. letting democrat and establishment stooges tell me so.

I will not vote for another Bush. Never

Posted by: Cooldawg at February 14, 2016 08:58 AM (8SeI1)

353 ...I consider George W Bush an American Hero. I'm also considering Ted Cruz...

W seems to be a decent man but his tribe is NWO. Like father like son. The son was smart enough and decent enough to hide it. His blueblood father couldn't. George H W and Bill Clinton are both members of the same crime family. All I know about Cruz is that his wife works for Goldman Sachs and that Goldman Sachs gave him a $1,000,000 loan for his campaign. Goldman Sachs believes in Cruz more than I ever could. Cruz did call out the R Senate Leadership on their lies. So he has that going for him.

Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 09:00 AM (CRXed)

354 Very disappointed in Trump. He gets halfway to the truth about 9/11 being a Zionist conspiracy but then chose to focus his ire on W rather than Israel.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 09:01 AM (kf2iZ)

355 "9/11 were unstoppable, like a hurricane or earthquake, then GWB is
obviously not responsible. But obviously it was stoppable. It would have
taken a little racial profiling, that's all."

It wouldn't even have taken racial profiling. It would have simply involved putting out the word through the federal bureaucracy that anyone here in the States on an overstay visa should be held for ICE, and then sent back to their home country if no good reason for the overstay was given.

That could have been a week-one order to the federal apparat by Bush as he was just getting settled in. Described as tidying up loose ends left from the previous administration. It is something that should have been done even in the absence of general terror warnings from the intelligence services. And it would have hugely complicated the operational plans of the 9/11 plotters.

But Bush didn't do a damn thing about leaky borders and visa overstays because Bush was, temperamentally, an open borders globalist.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 14, 2016 09:02 AM (noWW6)

356 Has anyone ever asked Trump whether he believe fire can melt steel?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 09:05 AM (kf2iZ)

357 Baron. You don't think Israel is responsible for 911 do you?

Posted by: ThunderB at February 14, 2016 09:07 AM (zOTsN)

358 ...creating yet another agency...

That was not-letting-a-crisis-go-to-waste.
Homeland security plans were probably from George H W Bush's administration if not Jimmy Carter's. The US Government is being run by crime families. See the movie "Little Miss Marker" and think of Hillary as Marky.

Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 09:08 AM (CRXed)

359 355
But Bush didn't do a damn thing about leaky borders and visa overstays because Bush was, temperamentally, an open borders globalist.
Posted by: torquewrench at February 14, 2016 09:02 AM (noWW6)


That's exactly right. If there was ever a time to lock the border down tight, it was 9/11. It would have had the support of 90% of the American people. Bush didn't do it because he didn't want to do it.

In fact the opposite happened. Immigration by both Mexicans and Muslims increased after 9/11. Can't blame Obama for that.

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 09:08 AM (sdi6R)

360 100 Also I don't support Planned Parenthood as Trump apparently said he does.
*************************

Trump's position is that he would defund Planned Parenthood's abortion factory while still permitting funding for non-abortion services. He didn't have a chance to clarify his position when Cruz was sniping him. I'm not sure if I would agree with it, but it's definitely not as bad as Cruz made it out to be.
Posted by: Burn It Down at February 14, 2016 02:43 AM (qHgBB)


Imma have to stop you right there. You are arguing the status quo as a reasonable option.

That money enables PP to exist and provide abortions, even if the accounting "shows" its only for non-abortion services.

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at February 14, 2016 09:12 AM (E1IKf)

361 357 Baron. You don't think Israel is responsible for 911 do you?

Not solely. Of course Wall Street was in on it - particularly Goldman Sachs. And Haliburton. Plus the Neo-Cons. And the No Borders crowd. But Israel totally provided the patsies, money, and scheming. Google it, people!



Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 09:17 AM (kf2iZ)

362 ...You are arguing the status quo as a reasonable option. ...

So who can we really believe will cut federal money for PP?

I don't believe Cruz will. I don't believe Rubio will. Kasich would likely increase the amount.

Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 09:20 AM (CRXed)

363 ...responsible for 911...

Jamie S. Gorelick

She did the cover-up too.

Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 09:22 AM (CRXed)

364 "...You are arguing the status quo as a reasonable option. ...

So who can we really believe will cut federal money for PP?

I don't believe Cruz will. I don't believe Rubio will. Kasich would likely increase the amount."

---------------

Brother, did you miss the portion of the debate where Trump said "Planned Parenthood does some great things?" And you're under the impression HE will cut PP? What makes any of you think he's going to cut government as opposed to just rearranging it to benefit his corporate and business interests?

Posted by: Rich at February 14, 2016 09:23 AM (MIdlN)

365 362 ...You are arguing the status quo as a reasonable option. ...

So who can we really believe will cut federal money for PP?

I don't believe Cruz will. I don't believe Rubio will. Kasich would likely increase the amount.
Posted by: scorecard at February 14, 2016 09:20 AM (CRXed)

So you're rationalizing in order to keep supporting Trump. That's...normal. In fact, I believe that's the crux of the whole GWB discussion here.

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at February 14, 2016 09:24 AM (E1IKf)

366 Let's give money to the Corleone family for their olive oil business but make them promise not to use it for their racketeering and murder business.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 09:26 AM (kf2iZ)

367 TRUMP/THE WALL/THE GUN
2016
America's Alpha Male will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

putin vs. cruz
putin vs. rubio the robotic runt
or
putin vs. jeb 'act of love' bush
or
putin vs THE DONALD

NO CONTEST!

Posted by: Myshiba at February 14, 2016 09:31 AM (n20xt)

368 I skip the debates because they only seem to serve the appetite of the masses and media for bloodletting. And this is my first encounter of your blog, courtesy of BadBlue. Frankly, I think your analysis may well be spot on. Trump has not just crossed but in some cases obliterated 'the line' during the course of this campaign and, yet, emerges from the smoke still intact. I think his bravado vis-a-vis the threat of Islamic hegemony aka the 'silent jihad' has had much to do with his teflon-ism. But to buy into the left's hoodwinking on Iraq and, by extension, Afghanistan? I do believe that will give some - many? - traditional Republicans reason to pause.

Granted, that probably won't knock him out of the top slot in the near term, but it could hurt him in states where the GOP has managed to maintain primary and caucus systems that actually limit participation to those who have consistently identified with the party.

So imagine a general election ballot with Trump (indie, Rubio (GOP), Clinton (Dem), Bloomberg (indie) and even Sander's (Dem-Farmer-Labor) names on it. Not completely beyond the pale...

JM

Posted by: Joe Mac at February 14, 2016 09:33 AM (B1oxw)

369 Since you brought it up, here's my issue with the "birthers" topic:

1) No matter what anyone says, the legal defintion of natural born citizen (NBC) as intended by the Framers is unfortunately FAR from settled. A basic review of the legal topic illustrates that there are at least 3 main views on it that each have considerable legal support and history behind them. It seems to be that there is a pretty clear original intent, similar to the right to bear arms, that lawyers, judges have (surprise!) "reinterpreted" for 200 years. So you have splits on its meaning, and the effect of subsquent law on it. So it is, as best, unsettled. Saying that isn't doesn't make you a kook, just honest; rather, saying it IS settled shows that you may have an agenda (i.e. you want a certain person to benefit or be burdened from that position, be it Cruz, Obama, Rubio, Jindal, McCain, etc.). Whether a court would hear the issue is 180 degress from whether the issue has merit, as judges decide on whims to hear or not hear issues (or settle them) all the time ("standing" anyone? Tax, not a penalty?).

2) Again, no matter what definition of NBC you are using, the best evidence of age and NBC status is a certified copy of the original birth certificate (as it usually has all the info you need to determine NBC and age). If you are running for office, YOU have the initial burden of proof of meeting those two requirements. How hard is it to meet? Not hard at all - obtain an original copy of your BC from the Dept. of Records of your birthplace (signed and stamped as true and accurate subject to criminal penalties) and file it with the Clerk of the US Senate for all to see if they so choose BEFORE you run for office or get elected. Cruz produced his over a year ago, thus meeting that initial burden of proof. If there is some doubt over his eligibility, that's what the courts or Congress is for. But you can't evaluate that at all IF YOU DON'T PRODUCE IT FIRST. You can't claim "confidentiality" of birth info and then run for an office that requires disclosure of that information. It took Obama 3 1/2 years INTO HIS FIRST TERM to release that information, and only after Trump forced his hand. That's nuts. Keep in mind, that NBC issued was first raised by.....wait for it.....Hillary Clinton in 2008. And when he did produce it, I never heard any word that he actually filed it in the Clerk of the Senate, only that he posted a scan to the internet (tell me, does that method work for litigation, like commencing and serving a complaint? If not, tell me why....). And if there's one thing you can trust for authenticity, it's the internet. I can tell ya that you can't be criminally charged for any fraudulent filing if it is never actually filed.

3) So it's is a conspiracy theory that Obama would lie on an important matter? Sure it is, after all, Barry has demonstrated countless times over what an honest and straightforward man he is, never once telling us one thing and doing another. How's your doctor or health plan, by the way? Still using that private server we know nothing about? What's your thoughts on that Iran deal we never got to read? Is he still madder than hell about not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS? Why on Christ's Earth would you condemn him as the liar that he is on damn near every other issue he opens his face hole on, yet give him the benefit of the doubt on an issue when HE (arguably) didn't meet that burden of proof for 3 1/2 years, and only after ANOTHER narcissist called him out on it, the very same narcissist you find to be conspiratorial?

4) Keep in mind, the ORIGINAL liar on Obama's NBC status is....drumroll please....Obama himself! It's been confirmed that the man has been running this line of shit for over 20 years - copies of his author bio (see Brietbart) revealed that he's been claiming Kenyan birth for at least 16 years, magically ceasing that claim when he ran for President (most likely as a way to gain cred for admission to colleges when his high school grades were self-admittedly piss poor; tell me, does wanting his transcripts make one a conspiracy theorist?). So when the rumors of his Kenyan birth originate from the man himself (because he's, get this, a liar) why is it kooky to simply expect him (or anyone else so situated) to produce a certified copy of his BC before we make any judgment calls one way or the other, and before we elect him leader of the Free World? Especially given the unsettled nature of the law on NBC? For Christ's sake, Juan McCain was sued on his NBC status in 2006-07 (due to the nature of his birth location) while Obama laughed it off!

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 14, 2016 09:33 AM (zBwYh)

370 So is Trump going to apologize to Rosie O'Donnell not that he is parroting her thoughts on 9/11 and Iraq?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 09:33 AM (kf2iZ)

371 Politicians flip-flop on positions of national interest. Film at 11.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 14, 2016 09:35 AM (zBwYh)

372 issues that matter in 2016:

THE WALL
STOPPING THE ILLEGAL INVASION
NO MORE BETA MALES IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Posted by: Myshiba at February 14, 2016 09:35 AM (n20xt)

373 I can't stand Trump, but I doubt this will hurt him for the same reason nothing hurts him, the people on the other side are just as disgusting as Trump, but Trump has at least pretended to give a shit about the working class while the other people, corporate whores, establishment, even a lot of your everyday righties, routinely shit all over the working class. That video of Carrier announcing it was going to Mexico? Most Republicans used that as an excuse to once again shit on American workers. The working class watch corporate whores get rich by colluding with government to abuse the immigration system and undercut the American labor force with cheap foreign labor and Republicans call that collusion a free market, but when workers try to use that same immigration system to slow the importation of foreign labor so wages will rise, Republicans call them protectionists, racists and spoiled pussies who just need to work harder. Workers are just sick of being constantly shit on and Trump is the only person at least pretending to be on their side, as long as that's the case there's virtually nothing that'll hurt him. It's just too bad people don't abandon the two party system altogether, as long as people limit their choices to R or D nothing will actually change.

Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 14, 2016 09:39 AM (AfES1)

374 >>I can't wait to appoint Huma to the SCOTUS...

*hic*

Posted by: Hillary Clinton

And by that I mean the Supreme Cooch of the US

Posted by: Hillary at February 14, 2016 09:40 AM (c7vUv)

375 Posted by: Joe Mac at February 14, 2016 09:33 AM (B1oxw)

Welcome to the Horde. Kick back, enjoy the show.

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at February 14, 2016 09:41 AM (E1IKf)

376 370 So is Trump going to apologize to Rosie O'Donnell not that he is parroting her thoughts on 9/11 and Iraq?
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 09:33 AM (kf2iZ)

Old GOPe News: Donald Trump is evil by being disrespectful to WYMYN like the distinguished Rosie O'Donnell whom he insulted

New GOPe Hotness: Donald Trump is stupid just like stupid Rosie O'Donnell !

Posted by: Juicer at February 14, 2016 09:41 AM (7AlBN)

377 Anyone still defending W and the Bush families sacred honor is quite frankly insane.

George W Bush was a disaster, from a pointless costly war, to massive deficit spending and the expansion of leviathan in all of it's manifestations, to setting the stage for the rise of the SCOAMF - A. Disaster.

God I hate myself for even uttering these words, we would have been better off if W was not elected in 2000 and Gore was.

9/11 still happens but Gore would not have gone into Iraq and with Gore serving what would essentially be Clinton's third term, fatigue would have set in and we would never have had the rise of the SCOAMF.




Posted by: Kreplach at February 14, 2016 09:42 AM (WVvzl)

378 Keep in mind, we live in an insane world. I don't think Bush lied, but that's me. Trump signalling that Bush lied will go a long way toward bringing other voters to him. Aren't we always talking about "expanding the tent"? Well, Trump's doing it with a method "we" don't like very much.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 14, 2016 09:42 AM (zBwYh)

379 Trump began the debate already mid-stride, and in full attack mode. Could it be the Cruz "He's a Fake!!" ads have upset him? It sure was weird to watch.

Posted by: MTF at February 14, 2016 09:42 AM (TxJGV)

380 Ace, Trump was set up, and didn't react well to it. The RNC controlled who got into the audience. As you heard, Trump was savagely booed and jeered nearly every time he opened his mouth. This suggests the audience was packed with Bush and Rubio (establishment) supporters . I think Trump was taken aback by the conduct of the audience. At the other debates, he's had lots of supporters in the crowd. He was not expecting what happened, and was not prepared to look "presidential." He attacked the audience and made outrageous and foolish statements to get back at them. The moderator was a liberal douchebag. Why don't the Repubs insist on more neutral moderators? This guy argued with the candidates to make them look stupid. It was a Candy Crowley event all over again. Last night made all the candidates look foolish, Trump especially. Good job, DNC.

Posted by: Marvin Mungpie at February 14, 2016 09:46 AM (U936r)

381 Trump sounded sort of tin-foil insane, with his claims Bush deliberately lied us into the ill-fated Iraq war. Incompetence is the far simpler explanation, as Hillary demonstrated recently in Libya and Rice/Power/Kerry in Syria.

Posted by: MTF at February 14, 2016 09:47 AM (TxJGV)

382 373
It's just too bad people don't abandon the two party system altogether, as long as people limit their choices to R or D nothing will actually change.
Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 14, 2016 09:39 AM (AfES1)


I've said before that the best thing that could happen in this election is if both parties split. Then there would be a chance of a realignment along the lines of liberty vs. statism, which would clarify things.

Charles Murray has written an article in the WSJ describing Trump's appeal to the white working class. It sounds good and I'd like to read it, but it's behind a paywall. Here it is anyway:

https://tinyurl.com/ht4ve2k

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 09:50 AM (sdi6R)

383 I bet Trump ends up losing in SC, after that bizarre performance, but who can really say what will happen in this crazy election.

He was really off his meds though.

Posted by: MTF at February 14, 2016 09:51 AM (TxJGV)

384 Who caused 9/11? Reagan was ref one who gave billions to radical jihad
To fight a country that couldn't do a good job of making cars or baking bread

Posted by: Bubba at February 14, 2016 09:54 AM (szQGH)

385 378 Keep in mind, we live in an insane world. I don't think Bush lied, but that's me. Trump signalling that Bush lied will go a long way toward bringing other voters to him. Aren't we always talking about "expanding the tent"? Well, Trump's doing it with a method "we" don't like very much.
Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 14, 2016 09:42 AM (zBwYh)


Good point! I didn't watch the debate and I don't believe Bush lied us into the war, but many people do, and Trump could very well appeal to them. I still think Trump has a better chance of peeling off traditional Democrat voters than anyone else.

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 09:58 AM (sdi6R)

386 If Trump damaged himself at the last debate how come all the polls show him as the winner with massive wins over his competitors. Give up. You're not going to beat Trump because you have the facts all wrong.

Posted by: Jerry G at February 14, 2016 09:59 AM (xXcKq)

387 I'm voting for Cruz. Everybody hates him. The politicians hate him. The elites hate him. The media hates him. The lobbyists hate him. They all hate Cruz, just like they hate the voters. Go Cruz!

Posted by: Dobby at February 14, 2016 10:00 AM (b1uWI)

388 "I think Trump was taken aback by the conduct of the audience. At the
other debates, he's had lots of supporters in the crowd. He was not
expecting what happened, and was not prepared to look "presidential." He
attacked the audience and made outrageous and foolish statements to get
back at them. The moderator was a liberal douchebag. Why don't the
Repubs insist on more neutral moderators?"

Trump is supposed to make America great again through his magnificent Trumpitude - making the best deals and picking the best people who will do the most amazing jobs.

But, somehow, despite the fact it was posted on Drudge for three days this week, Trump was caught completely unaware that the SC debate seats went to SC GOP bigwigs. Like Lindsey Graham.

So, caught unaware by something widely reported and commented upon Trump gets flustered and goes full Code Pink retard.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 10:04 AM (kf2iZ)

389 Several weeks after Ace posts how supporting Establishment during W's terms made him feel dirty, he now argues people who feel dirty for supporting establishmentarians will naturally flee the most anti-establishment candidate on the stage.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 14, 2016 10:05 AM (+nt2i)

390 386
If Trump damaged himself at the last debate how come all the polls show
him as the winner with massive wins over his competitors. Give up.
You're not going to beat Trump because you have the facts all wrong.

Hear, hear! I wholeheartedly concur.

Posted by: President Ron Paul at February 14, 2016 10:06 AM (kf2iZ)

391 Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 09:50 AM (sdi6R)


Yeah, I read that Murray piece yesterday, it's a good article for the most part, but he unfortunately concludes that it's the white working class who have given up on American ideals, not the corporate/establishment types, a lot of good points otherwise though.

Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 14, 2016 10:08 AM (AfES1)

392 Trump on the phone with George S. and not backing down.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 14, 2016 10:15 AM (8PbKi)

393 I did RTWT ACE I got to 58 in the comments. When Pres Bush said war, I was confused at 1st, then I saw an ME map on the news went OH! Location, location, location. Message sent - fuck w/US we'll fuck you over like Iraq.

As to no WMD's? Really You believe an enemies lies over your own gov't because they did a bait switch? And you guys are the "informed" voters?

I give up. LIB, SMOD, whatever - maybe the US does need to hit rock bottom to get a clue after all!

Posted by: Amy Shulkusky at February 14, 2016 10:16 AM (iTpVl)

394 This may or may not hurt Trump in the primaries, but it does reinforce my belief that President Trump will be a disaster. We shall see though.

As long as the Texan is in the race, I'm not going to have to settle for a liberal Northeastern Republican.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at February 14, 2016 10:18 AM (rwI+c)

395 Trump on with George S. says he was joking about putting his sis on SC.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 14, 2016 10:18 AM (8PbKi)

396 Okay, let's have a vote.

Do you think Trump, if he is the nominee, will be treated more fairly, less fairly, or with about the same degree of fairness by the moderators when he debates the Democrat nominee?


Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 10:18 AM (kf2iZ)

397 As to no WMD's? Really You believe an enemies lies over your own gov't because they did a bait switch? And you guys are the "informed" voters?


***

I believe those very weapons are being used by Assad.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 14, 2016 10:19 AM (8PbKi)

398 I don't watch primary debates. I'm confident that I can see the parts that matter the next day.

Ace is the only site I've seen that claims that Trump really hurt himself. CNN, Fox, NatInterest, etc. all talk about how nasty it was, in general, and mostly focus on either the Rubio/Cruz exchanges, or the Trump/Bush exchanges - but nobody is saying that knockout blows were landed or self-inflicted.

What gives?

I think Trump is a terrible candidate, only better than Clinton or Sanders. I'd seriously consider voting for Jeb if he was the only other Republican, which says a lot since I cannot stand another RINO.

So, again, why isn't anyone else talking about Trump's self destruction?

Posted by: RobM1981 at February 14, 2016 10:20 AM (zurJC)

399 Trump made a calculated move:
He thinks he has this sewn up, and this was his signal for the general to get crossover D voters

Posted by: Trump at February 14, 2016 10:21 AM (EQcBC)

400 395 Trump on with George S. says he was joking about putting his sis on SC.

Has he mentioned his stance on the matter of fire vs. steel?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 10:21 AM (kf2iZ)

401 Trump made a calculated move:
He thinks he has this sewn up, and this was his signal for the general to get crossover D voters

***

There was nothing calculate about it. He lost his shit and it came flooding out like verbal diarrhea.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 14, 2016 10:24 AM (8PbKi)

402 This is what, the 8th or 9th, Republican debate? Add on to that the massive amount of media and rallies that Trump holds.

Trump has far more face time with the public than the GOPe candidates combined. If he hasn't cratered in the polls by now, he won't. A "bad" performance in front of a stacked audience with moderators that want to have 0bama's babies isn't going to change anything.

Trump is the closest thing to SMOD there is. So, fuck it, that is why his support won't diminish.

Posted by: Hobo, the other white meat at February 14, 2016 10:26 AM (roYZA)

403 OK...Trump is Sarah Palin all over again. Repubs desperate for a savior fell in love with her from the beginning (yes, I did too). Her kickass, "America first" attitude was very captivating after years of war and economic troubles. However, even after the cracks of "all bravado, but no substance" were beginning to grow and deepen, a substantial number of Repubs continued to cling on to this hope that she was the answer. She wasn't. He is not.

Posted by: anotherjoe at February 14, 2016 10:27 AM (u7o/O)

404 396 Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 10:18 AM (kf2iZ)
---

I gotta better answer for ya - if Trump wins office, he will be the first President in a long time that will be criticized by both sides of the media (Fox and CNN, lib/conservative) because neither will like him or trust him. For the first time in a long time, the press will actually be united in doing its job.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 14, 2016 10:29 AM (zBwYh)

405 I don't blame Bush for 9/11. But the CIA came to Bush in Aug 2001 to tell him that a domestic attack was imminent and he blew them off. I've long believed that the CIA did this because they couldn't share with the FBI without being felons, thanks to Jamie Gorelick, praise be unto her, but hoped that a light bulb would go off in Bush's head so that he would tell the FBI to be on the lookout. Reports to the FBI about the 9/11 were there but didn't have context.

My main take away is that the Federal government is nearly always collectively incompetent even when its competent members do the right thing.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 14, 2016 10:34 AM (rs5De)

406 Trump crossed the line into the same territory that Michael Moore and other democrats reside in. Regardless of what you think of W, there is no way anyone who is a true Conservative can really justify supporting Trump now without being in that same place.

Posted by: Rgallegos at February 14, 2016 10:34 AM (49Jfq)

407 If it's now blaming Israel for 9/11, this thread has gone so far out there it needs to be closed. Moving along now.....

Posted by: AnnaS at February 14, 2016 10:37 AM (P+I7L)

408 Proves that Trump has spent most of the past sixteen years at parties with Leftists and people who don't read online blogs or any other information except the NY Times.
Just about every single Democrat also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What weapons needed to be hidden were taken out of Iraq by that Russian convoy and into Lebanon and other places.

People also tend to forget that Saddam and two insane sons who were killers and torturers and who would have taken over for him. Ted Kennedy believed that Iraq had those weapons as did every other Democrat big mouth.

That "rush into war" required the votes in Congress, which they supplied GW Bush, unlike the unvoted for declarations of Barack Obama, who has been a true dictator. What a crock. Trump is an ignorant and ill-informed toady to his rich and famous buddies. No independent thinking whatsoever. Dare I say it? DUMB

Posted by: Femme Mentalle at February 14, 2016 10:38 AM (SJ184)

409 Every "Trump has blown it" moment so far has either been a no-effect situation or moved him up in the polls.

I'm not sure why this one would change the pattern, but we'll see. I think people have much larger boogie-men on their minds than refighting the Iraq decision.

They are worried about the battles that are coming.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 14, 2016 10:40 AM (3myMJ)

410 This blogger is out of wacko mind. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that the Iraq war was one of the biggest eff ups in the history of this country.

Won't hurt Trump one bit.

Posted by: Mike at February 14, 2016 10:42 AM (X/hFk)

411 Whatever, Ace...This is how a normal GOP voter felt back then: We should flatten Mecca - wait, the industrial military complex GOP donor class wants us to flatten the low hanging fruit of Iraq instead? Okay, we just want blood anyhow.

Posted by: doug at February 14, 2016 10:45 AM (Y7fRE)

412 much larger boogie-men on their minds
Posted by: Meremortal


I'm visualizing "Gene Gene the Dancing Machine" or an overweight John Belushi in the Blues Brothers.

I think you mean "bogeymen."

Posted by: zombie at February 14, 2016 10:49 AM (jBuUi)

413 Because defending the honor of George W. Bush is the most critical concern of Republican voters. You know, because he was such a champion for conservative principles.

Wishful thinking among the GOPe. Laughable.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at February 14, 2016 10:51 AM (jEIZo)

414

It's possible that Trump's ridiculous, off-the-cuff comment that Bush lied us into war will be his undoing. ...But I seriously doubt it.

Like most other conservatives, I supported president Bush in invading Iraq in toppling Saddam - for a sizable host of reasons one of the most compelling of which was WMD.
And I still believe that Saddam had WMD.
I think if you give someone close to a year's heads-up that the US is coming into kick his ass because of WMD that he (especially with the dictatorial power of State at his disposal) can find a way to hide them or get them out of the country.

Iraq shares a border with Syria, and don't forget that Saddam's regime was Bathist - and that Assad's regime is also Bathist.
So while it's unknown exactly what happened to the WMD, one plausibility is that Saddam made arrangements to get them out of country with the tacit cooperation of a more or less friendly neighbor.

At the time, I thought taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.
But if we had it to do over again, I would be against it for the sole reason that now we know that unless the war (the post-war occupation, really) had gone damn-near perfectly that the prominent Democrats who had supported attacking Iraq would abandon the mission and undermine the effort.

So no, I do not agree with Trump's ludicrous claim that Bush lied about WMD and got us into a war based on the lie.
But so what? I immediately took exception when I heard it, but I didn't even wince. And here's why: The decision to invade Iraq is a long since dead issue. Bush hasn't been president for the better part of a decade.

However, Iraq and the Middle East are now much worse than before we invaded. Even conservatives like me who staunchly supported and DEFENDED president Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq now have serious war fatigue and wish we had just stayed out.
Note that there is absolutely no talk whatsoever within the GOP field about going back into Iraq to salvage the hard fought victory that Obama and the Dims have thrown away.

Why did Trump say it? Does he really believe it? Maybe.
Or maybe he was just grabbing for the biggest club to bludgeon Jeb with. That's my guess. Sort of like hitting back and calling Rosie Odonell a fat, ugly pig. You're going to attack The Don? Okay, well he's going to hit you BACK where it hurts most.

But even if he really believes that nonsense he uttered: so what? What does that have to do with ending the biggest threat to the conservative movement which is the Illegal Immigration Crisis? Or anything else that's on the table during THIS election cycle?

The debate over whether to invade Iraq is over.
Hell, the debate over whether there was ever WMD is over. - Unresolved, mind you. But OVER nonetheless.

This election will be about the relevant and critical issues of the day. It will not be about an unresolvable debate rehash over WMD from last decade.



Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 14, 2016 10:51 AM (zhLKc)

415 >> With just a few poorly chosen angry words, Trump declared a lot of allegiance to the enemy tribe, and essentially said "I'm not like you."

People have correctly been saying he is not "conservative" since he entered the race. About one third of the GOP electorate just don't care. They've decided Trump is who they want and NOTHING will change their mind. Since the bottom four candidates will never check their ego for the greater good, you can only hope that their donors stop writing them checks. Until the field narrows to Trump and one or two others, Trump will soldier on no matter how unhinged he is. There were times his face was so red I thought he might burst a blood vessel. He has always struck me as unstable given how easy it is to rile him.

Posted by: Groty at February 14, 2016 10:51 AM (QRGpe)

416 Um, maybe he is afearin' he may be the Republican candidate and this is his exit strategery. After all, Bill sent him to eff up the primary system and he has succeeded spectacularly. Now he has to exit before his personal brand is too damaged with Democrats, who are the future.
I can hear Bill saying "Good job, Donald! Welcome home!"

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at February 14, 2016 11:00 AM (FtrY1)

417 414
The debate over whether to invade Iraq is over.
Hell, the debate over whether there was ever WMD is over. - Unresolved, mind you. But OVER nonetheless.

This election will be about the relevant and critical issues of the day. It will not be about an unresolvable debate rehash over WMD from last decade.


Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 14, 2016 10:51 AM (zhLKc)


Yes! Excellent.

I'm not a "Trump Super Fan". I support him very warily, but I do think he's the least worst candidate in this election.

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 11:00 AM (sdi6R)

418 Is there anyone who was with Trump, but now isn't with Trump because of this?



Posted by: Mr. Estrada

I wasn't with Trump, but it was enough that I won't cast a vote for him now. With all of the delays caused by the 2000 election debacle, 43 had only had his team in place for maybe 6 months or so on 9/11. It would have taken a hell of a lucky guess to think that biggest threat to America was a few guys hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC.

Posted by: Scott P at February 14, 2016 11:06 AM (Pp6E1)

419 I found a link to the Charles Murray article, ironically in a Diana West blog post, who criticizes it:

https://www.aei.org/publication/trumps-america/

Here is Diana West's critique:

https://tinyurl.com/hgnsux3


(I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I also think she's pretty dang hawt. I loves me some sultry brunettes.)

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 11:09 AM (sdi6R)

420 Since most of us here are ostensibly right-leaning types here, let's remember that however Iraq looks in hindsight the reality at the time was different. The resolution to use military force passed the House 297-133 and the Senate 77-23 (with Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer voting aye).

And let's not forget that on January 19, 2009 Iraq was stable and secure. All Obama had to do was secure a status of forces agreement. Obama chose instead to deliberately sabotage the victory Bush handed him. Obama's bitchy petulance is what created ISIS and the shitstorm in Syria. Just to deny Bush a legacy.

Trump might have said a word or two about that, but instead he goes unprovoked to the "W lied about WMD" angle. You don't go there unless it's a place you've already been.

I completely understand retrospectively thinking Iraq was a huge mistake but there's a huge gap between being wrong and lying. I would think a person running for the Republican nomination could find a way to say that Iraq may have been a mistake but it only became a basketcase because that's what Obama wanted rather than echo Michael Moore.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 14, 2016 11:10 AM (kf2iZ)

421
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see this hurting Trump.
But if it is going to hurt him, there's
only one way that can happen: and that's if one of his opponents picks
up that club and brandishes it against him.
And that's risky as hell
for at least a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, it is Donald Trump we're talking about here. Almost every time someone tries a prolonged attack against him, it backfires. (The one notable exception being Cruz saying Trump has New York values.) If you decide to attack Trump, you better have a good exit/retreat strategy.

Second, the attack necessarily requires harping on a very unpopular topic, the Iraq War and the utterly ugly clusterfuck it has turned out to be.
Which of the candidates wants to sound like a broken record defending a lost (and now very unpopular) cause? And which of them wants to do it by rehashing the uresolvable issue of WMD?

Someone might give it a shot. We'll see.
But if none of the other candidates is willing to directly attack Trump over it, then it will soon be forgotten - in favor of issues that are actually RELEVANT to this election cycle.




Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 14, 2016 11:12 AM (zhLKc)

422 Re Trump and W:

Funny...just yesterday I was telling Wifey about a replacement window salesman who grinned derisively at me when I said I had recently bought some windows from another vendor.

I said the guy must be a rookie, because he was essentially telling me I was a fool for buying a competing product.

Hardly the way to land a new customer!

Posted by: Noam Sayen at February 14, 2016 11:18 AM (bIhmV)

423 408 --"Just about every single Democrat also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What weapons needed to be hidden were taken out of Iraq by that Russian convoy and into Lebanon and other places. "

Anyone remember William Cohen, a Clinton-era Secretary of Defense, going on TV with a five pound bag of sugar, saying that if Saddam were to unleash just that amount of anthrax on the world, he could kill everyone on Earth?

(Yeah, Cohen was GOP, but he was speaking for a Dem administration.)

And what about this?

Clinton, On Saddam's WMD:

"Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too." CLINTON: "[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."
(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/9

Posted by: Noam Sayen at February 14, 2016 11:29 AM (bIhmV)

424 A thought provoking article from 2009--"Bush at the Stone Table: The Sacrificial Presidency of George W. Bush" . Like the author, I'm not equating Bush with Jesus Christ. It's not long, so read the whole thing at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bush_at_the_stone_table_the_sa.html

Posted by: debzeppelin at February 14, 2016 11:30 AM (ttFRc)

425 Years after the Iraq war I concluded that Bush and the Neo-cons suckered me into supporting the Iraq war. Worse he did it throwing open the borders to 3ed world in invaders that have fucked this country up. Hell yes I felt like a rube. I will never again trust a lying neo-con and I've opposed ever war since Iraq.

Thinking over 911 the proper response should have been bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and then Pakistan until they handed Bin Laden over. Then we should have shut off all travel and imigration from Muslim nations for 25 years.

A show of roman like strength followed keeping the terrorists out would have kept us safe and strong. Instead we let even more muslims in and I had to listen to that idiot Bush tell me Islam is a religion of peace for 8 years while they murdered Americans.

Posted by: Red10 at February 14, 2016 11:38 AM (CdEiq)

426 I think the writer is reading WAY too much into this. First off, President Bush is NOT running, so the idea that he lied about WMDs or did, or did not, keep us safe is really not a huge issue in 2016. Jeb Bush keeps insisting his brother President Bush "Kept Us Safe" but technically that simply is not true. Trump wasn't blaming Bush for 9/11, but merely making the point that 3000 Americans died on his watch. That's NOT safe! Trump accused Bush of lying about WMDs, which isn't the 1st time we've heard such an accusation from many others, and whether it's true or not -- who knows? What we DO know is that, Lie or Not, there were no WMDs found. I suspect voters will draw their own conclusions, and they will be more favorable toward Trump than Jeb. I'm not so sure this debate will help Trump, but I don't think it's going to hurt him. Trump is so far out in front in SC that he's pretty close to unstoppable. His supporters are on The Trump Train because they like unfiltered, shoot from the hip, brash taking, no-nonsense Trump. They got Trump in overdrive last night -- big and bold -- and I suspect the voters who watched were cheering him on from their living rooms.

Posted by: Jackson Furst at February 14, 2016 11:45 AM (XzKea)

427 I think the writer is reading WAY too much into this.

Posted by: Jackson Furst at February 14, 2016 11:45 AM (XzKea)

The writer? You must be new...

Posted by: Golfman at February 14, 2016 11:50 AM (mbdVz)

428 426
What we DO know is that, Lie or Not, there were no WMDs found.

Posted by: Jackson Furst at February 14, 2016 11:45 AM (XzKea)


I'm pretty sure that WMDs were in fact found. Others were apparently spirited off to Syria where they may be in use today. But Bush did a piss-poor job of explaining that to the American people.

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 11:52 AM (sdi6R)

429 229 By the way I've commented here sparingly for years. Enjoy reading rather than adding my two cents with the usually bright and witty commenters here, but apparently the class of people has changed recently.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:46 AM (YwQCs)

Me too - a few morons know me on Twitter [ Bossy Amy Shulkusky @amyshulk ] and I have posted on AoS before.

Where we differ - I only felt informed enough to start voting at age 49 in 2010. Caveat - I was never sure if my absentee ballot while stationed in Bermuda 1985-'87 was sent in/counted.

I had planned to vote R again, but on 12/31/15 I received a Voter Registration Card using my address [have lived at this same address since 1997] for {} not my name a registered D so I notified the clerk at @ClarkCountyNV.gov - still awaiting a response other than "Thank you for notifying us, we will be looking into the record for {}" so I'm left hanging.

I read was nodding my head to your previous post ; Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 04:20 AM (YwQCs) especially with "acting exactly like a thin-skinned Obama" and have noted [on Twitter] a few times that I thought Trump was another O for saying what people wanted to hear, but if you listened all the way to the end [of sentence/paragraph/speech] you'd see he veered/veers far to the left. So I agree that Trump; "... is a liberal Democrat masquerading as a Conservative Republican." IMO he probably started out to be a spoiler to aid Clinton.

If he wins the Primary, IMO he'll [also like O] continue to pander to both sides if he gets the nod for Pres., we'll just have to *hope* that he hews right. With his "all for 1 and I am THE 1" attitude he will probably screw things up worse than O did!

Posted by: Amy Shulkusky at February 14, 2016 12:04 PM (iTpVl)

430 "... fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now."

Is that an actual Trump quote?

Meh, whatever, it was just a rhetorical question.



He's "not like us", that has got some meat on it though.

The GOP are the people in the audience, the big money, the trans-nationalists. All that GOPe and RINO stuck to your shoe, that is the real GOP.

Most of 'us' don't belong to either party and don't see a whole lot of difference between the two. The card carrying socialist Bernie Sanders and the nationalist Trump, they are different.


Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 14, 2016 12:12 PM (T78UI)

431 100 Trump's position is that he would defund Planned Parenthood's abortion factory while still permitting funding for non-abortion services. He didn't have a chance to clarify his position when Cruz was sniping him. I'm not sure if I would agree with it, but it's definitely not as bad as Cruz made it out to be.

Burn It Down has apparently never heard of the concept of money being fungible.

Functional illiteracy in finance is no way to go through life.

Posted by: Fringe at February 14, 2016 12:18 PM (+GIZJ)

432 Bush could have lifted the oil ban anytime during the 8years of his presidency he did it 60 days before he left office, and Bammy reinstated it. The Bushes in Texas employ hundreds of Sauds in their oil business.
After 911 the Bush White House seriously proposed training repairmen to spy and report on things they saw in your house. As far as I know this failed, probably because we got the G-damn patriot act, and the Orwellian Homeland security department. Refusal to profile was not only dangerous, and still is, but it allows the institution of the surveillance state. How in the hell WWII was fought without the ability to eavesdrop on everyone is a mystery, unless you realize that they knew who the enemy was and killed them men women and children. War is hell. During 911 within hours favored Sauds including donors to the terrorists were flown out of the country. Bush and Bushes suck, and we have a new bush incubus pupating in Texas thanks to lofo bush bots.
The truly effective things to protect America were never done. Closed borders with Troops, revoking every visa that muzzie trash had, and pumping our own oil were never done. Freezing of the fat Sauds bank accounts was never done. The fat princes live in London and the US swilling liquor and the high life while they finance wahhibism, and are called upon to pay no price. Send them home lock them and their families living abroad in the hellholes they created. Sadam was keeping Iran occupied with endless border wars, and in retrospect we neededk him and Gadafy in office because muzzies are 7th century crazies who need ruthless dictators to keep the fire ant pile contained. The current muzzie wars are not being fought anywhere to institute democracy, but just to replace dictators with other dictators. There are no hearts or minds to win, and certainly no hearts yearning for freedom. We got a lot of good men killed and maimed because Bushes wanted to play new world order chess with all the other players, and not protect American interests first last and always. The frickin border needs to be closed north and south. Travel bans on muzzies and ejection of illegals needs to be implemented for the civilized world. if Trump does only that it will be the saving of America.

Posted by: Old Guy at February 14, 2016 12:21 PM (6AK3D)

433 "They were itching to go and finish off Sadam, but the old men wouldn't let them.
They got their opportunity with W. And they were wrong. Dead Wrong.
They though they could make a model democratic state out Iraq. The old
men knew that was a pipe dream. And they were right.
And O and
his idiots completed the fuck-up by doing the worst possible thing,
pulling out. Going in was a huge fuck-up, but pulling out was an even
bigger one. " 252 publius

yup ... this is the root of where Trump is taking his stand. 25 years ago he complained on Oprah that Kuwait and the Saudis didn't pay for US saving "them". And shortly after 9/11, Trump said it was wrong to go into Iraq.

So for all the "Trump flips on every issue", nope. He said this when Iraq II started, and it would appear he was right, despite being a New York real estate guy and having perhaps greater anger about it than most.

The "Bush lied" thing (I haven't watched it yet, hate to watch the children argue) is not really new. Yeah Saddam broke UN sanctions and harbored some terrorists (though Afghanistan was "the good war" on the terrorist issue), but the war sale was made on the yellow cake and those alleged centrifuge tubes. The "lie" was we had to stop Saddam since he almost has nukes. Obviously an emotion plea using fear, but if we go to war, the public must be sold. I don't believe that was ever solid and they knew it.

I was on board as even my conservative friends started to doubt, and I acknowledged a decade ago that the nuke thing was "overplayed". But if stabilizing Iraq and giving us a "beachhead" was the right strategic thinking, then so be it. But we went soft, failed to win, left the Kurds in the cold, etc.

So while "the lie" had plausible deniability, it appears clear now it was a bad move. As support softened, Bush went soft, rules of engagement, winning hearts, all that. Trump can rightly say he was correct, as even with the vote we got an Iraqi president in bed with Iran.

Bush fans say but "he kept us safe", but Trump counters that the Bush administration starts pre 9/11, so no, he didn't. Blame is another category.

And Bush also stayed the course till public outcry was so great we got Obama instead of Hillary (maybe), after losing congress. So the "he kept us safe" might be interpreted as he gave us a commie and surrendered congress, and the current insane state of affairs, or dometic quagmire, if you will.

Trump now recognizes keeping us safe means controlling immigration, while establishment Rubio bends towards yielding to the military industrial complex and the politicized pentagon. When Rubio talks of the Europe problem, he speaks of defeating ISIS or Assad or no fly zones, but does not talk of immigration. Trump recognizes the Europe problem as an immigration/invasion problem. Stop "diversifying the western world, you globalists".

Saying Trump is an idiot seems to miss the bigger issues here, as emotionally pleasing at it apparently is (judging by above rants). Trump was "on the ground" through the whole thing with the big names, and has not flip flopped. If Iraq was a huge gambit, we blew it by not finishing before public support dissipated, leading to a commie like Obama. That was foreseeable, discussed on blogs. Whether Trump handled the establishment crowd and leftist moderators well, I don't know, I cringe to even watch it. Bad for my bp. heh

http://tinyurl.com/j9oteg6


Posted by: Illiniwek at February 14, 2016 12:21 PM (5Gpe2)

434 Good thoughts well presented, Ace, as usual.

The only thing I question is the premise, in that there has to be something Trump will do that will turn his supporters against him. I think you are looking for the Bridge (or Tunnel) Too Far, beyond which the preference cascade will lead to his supporters jumping ship. I'm not sure you will find one. The four-word message that is working the best this year, in both primaries, is

IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT

In terms of ego satisfaction, that is hard to beat. It explains away all the bad and promises something better. Can't get a job with your Asian Pottery degree? It's the banksters' fault! Defenestrate the 1%! On the GOP side, everything is the fault of regulation, immigration, Obama, what have you.

Trump going down this conspiracy road is obviously a red flag for people who don't believe things are their fault and don't need the ego stroke. Other people will forgive anything if they can have expiation themselves.

Posted by: Darren at February 14, 2016 12:29 PM (oE+6d)

435 Disagree. Trump killed it last night. It'll be hard to vote for him.

Posted by: jacke@gmail.com at February 14, 2016 12:46 PM (i8Shl)

436 Why the narrative that Bush was a F-up is important:

Look no further than the Flint water problem. Hillary has decided to go full Alinsky on the Michigan gov with the complete buy in of the media. And this tactic is always going to work with the low information public. You can't really blame Hillary for doing this in fact past results say this tactic will always work if the target is a republican and the problem is the least bit complex. There are probably lots of examples but Katrina is the best- how did this hurricane and the response to it get to be 100% the fault of the president of the U.S.?

Posted by: ADK46er at February 14, 2016 12:49 PM (oA2jF)

437 I don't think this actually hurts him with people that were already inclined to vote for him. It probably does in regards to people that had him as a second option. But I don't see it becoming the huge issue some are saying it's going to be. In my opinion people care more about not repeating a similar situation than saving GW's honor. It sounds very similar to the line of "he's not a True Conservative" and that has barely hurt him so far.

But to be perfectly honest I don't really know, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Posted by: Potatoer at February 14, 2016 12:59 PM (8u5sK)

438 Trump is just pealing off some gullible Dem votes. chill

Posted by: torabora at February 14, 2016 01:09 PM (+vQNR)

439 382
373

It's just too bad people don't abandon the two party system
altogether, as long as people limit their choices to R or D nothing will
actually change.

Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 14, 2016 09:39 AM (AfES1)



I've said before that the best thing that could happen in this
election is if both parties split. Then there would be a chance of a
realignment along the lines of liberty vs. statism, which would clarify
things.



Charles Murray has written an article in the WSJ describing Trump's
appeal to the white working class. It sounds good and I'd like to read
it, but it's behind a paywall. Here it is anyway:



https://tinyurl.com/ht4ve2k

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 09:50 AM (sdi6R)


rickl - it's also at aei.org

http://www.aei.org/publication/trumps-america/

Posted by: Amy Shulkusky at February 14, 2016 01:13 PM (iTpVl)

440 WMD's were not only found, they were used against us. Knew a Marine SGT in Los Angeles who had unit members injured by sarin.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 14, 2016 01:13 PM (Kucy5)

441 I don't think GWB deliberately lied about WMDs but I do think he used it as a pretext to go to Iraq. Trump thinks it was a deliberate lie, and I think it was a rationalization. Not much difference IMO because I don't think WMDs is or was a valid reason for us to invade Iraq. I didn't at the time and I still don't.
After 9/11, we could have made Afghanistan a parking lot in a week -- everyone in the world would have been fine with that. But instead, GWB splits our resources and forces by invading Iraq because Saddam was a bad man? The world is full of bad men -- we don't go invading countries and putting ourselves in 3rd world status debt for that. Look at Libya -- that's on Obama and Hillary -- but again, there was NO REASON for us to take Qudaffi out.
The entire neo-con thinking on "nation building" foreign policy is bullshit -- and Trump called it out.

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 14, 2016 01:14 PM (aNrvT)

442 #147 The haven for terrorists was there before we invaded. Our failure to fully control the ground enabled Iraq to continue to be a haven for terrorists....albeit it became a killing ground for them. The worth of our efforts was diminished by B+rry's bugging out. B+rry has no fight in him .... and there is evidence that he is a muzzie sympathizer.

Posted by: torabora at February 14, 2016 01:16 PM (+vQNR)

443 Trump went full Code Pink. You do not go Code Pink and claim to be a Republican. He sounded like John Kerry in 2004, Pelosi and Reid the entire eight years of W. Seeing many of you being willing to support Trump for saying shit that Hillary would say disgusts me. While I agree with him on some issues and in the past would pull the lever for him if he got the nomination, I am re-thinking that now. He sided with the liberal wing of the Democrat party. This is not the only issue that he does that and many of you are willing to overlook it in your desire to launch a kamikaze mission on the party.

Posted by: opinionator at February 14, 2016 01:18 PM (fIoge)

444 403
OK...Trump is Sarah Palin all over again. Repubs desperate for a savior
fell in love with her from the beginning (yes, I did too). Her
kickass, "America first" attitude was very captivating after years of
war and economic troubles. However, even after the cracks of "all
bravado, but no substance" were beginning to grow and deepen, a
substantial number of Repubs continued to cling on to this hope that she
was the answer. She wasn't. He is not.

Posted by: anotherjoe at February 14, 2016 10:27 AM (u7o/O)
Sarah Palin? So Trump was law-fared out of office, mocked so unmercifully that the Tina Fey bit "I see Russia from my house" is widely believed to have come from Palin treated like a stupid bimbo? I missed all that! Palin fired me up for 1st time since Reagan the Tea Party motivated me to vote. All Trump does is stir shit, play Alpha, and is a spoiler.

Posted by: Amy Shulkusky at February 14, 2016 01:23 PM (iTpVl)

445 The problem with all us non-Trump voters is, we "just don't understand..."

Trump hires 2000 illegal immigrants and stiff them on their pay to built his tower in Manhattan, but now he's gonna build a wall? "You just don't understand..."

Trump supported extended waiting periods and an assault weapons ban, but now he supports the Second Amendment? "You just don't understand..."

Trump moved transients into his building to drive out tenants so he could raise the rents, tried to use eminent domain to evict an old woman, supports Kelo, but he's going to stand up for the little guy? "You just don't understand..."

Serial philanderer and multiple divorcÚ but he's a religious guy because he "eats his little cracker?" "You just don't understand..."

Is a patriot but blames Bush for 9/11? "You just don't understand..."

Will stand up to Islam but still does business in Muslim countries that to this day ENSLAVE non-Muslims? "You just don't understand..."

Trump's only experience of the law is as a plaintiff or defendant, but he's qualified to pick SCOTUS justices? "You just don't understand..."

Trymp is a super business genius but has constantly underperformed the S&P 500, who would have made more money if he just stuck his cash in a mutual fund and spent his time selling crap fashions and cheap vodka? "You just don't understand..."

Yes, we do understand, Trumpkinheads. There ARE marks in the room... but we ain't them.


Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 14, 2016 01:30 PM (Kucy5)

446 Darren,
Well done.

Posted by: CaliGirl at February 14, 2016 01:41 PM (egOGm)

447 My mother likes Cruz and she thinks Rubio is cute. She doesn't like trump, thinks he's an idiot. She will still vote for him over Hillary or Bernie. Even after last night, which she didn't appreciate.

Posted by: CaliGirl at February 14, 2016 01:44 PM (egOGm)

448 "Trump went full Code Pink. He sided with the
liberal wing of the Democrat party." opinionator

Saying trying to turn Iraq and the ME democratic was wrong is not going Code Pink.

Trump's thing is America First, not these globalist notions. Bush I, II, and III are from the globalist families. Democrats are the commie globalists.

Trump says stop importing the Muslim jihadists, the other candidates lean toward open borders and democratizing the ME by fighting with the right jihadist groups. This is more about America First versus the Globalists.

Rubio will open borders, and tries to act like a military wonk, but doesn't talk about the problem of Europe as immigration problems, but as a losing the war problem. Immigration from "MENA" killed Europe, they let us fight the wars, mostly, but are still falling deeper in the crapper.

Is it better to display American Pride by defending Bush I and II, or by sealing the borders and fighting TPP's giveaways to the corporatists?

Cruz tries to separate himself from Bush, but that is his heritage.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 14, 2016 01:44 PM (5Gpe2)

449 lol on this post . . . Trump is really finished this time! We've heard that before, haven't we?

Look, Trump has knocked over so many sacred cows that it is getting comical to assert that This Is The Final Straw or You've Really Crossed the Line, Buddy. He has come out strongly against immigration, Muslim entry into this country, FOX News, National Review, and on and on. His popularity has not dipped one iota after he has been smashing all of the precious idols of the Republican party. He is destroying a web of deception and people love him for it.

This post is interesting because I think you are right about the human ego and the need to protect itself. But sometimes outside factors can cause people to abandon the self-preservation of their ego and the phony images that the ego constructs, when those phony constructs are leading them to ruin. So, a sense of true self-preservation will enable many people to abandon lies, if they sense that there is great danger and there is no advantage to retaining said ego.

We are in such a situation that many people realize that the mindless platitudes of the past are not going to save them. There is a palatable sense that this country is on the verge of fading away and becoming a tribal state. Egoic considerations are always a factor, but they take a backseat to fear.

The reason why Trump is successful is because people are afraid, and they should be. ISIS. Impending economic collapse. Boiling racial conflict. Explosion of narcotics. A crumbling border. A Supreme Court of Politicians. The loss of the rule of law. Mass exportation of jobs. The vanishing of the middle class.

Fear overrides the ego. Survival becomes key. Donald Trump understands what is at stake and that the current crop of candidates, aside from him, is powerless to stop it.

By the way, the hooting and hollering in the debate hall was from the donor class. Several articles have been published establishing that the SC debate was filled with Bush / Rubio flunkies. The debate audience was the establishment - not representative of the middle class who was cheering Trump on.

Trump was fighting the crowd and beating them back. And yes, he is challenging ideas that the ego of the average Republican voter has held precious. But after nearly 8 years of dictatorial rule by Obama, many of these Republican voters (and a vast number of Independents and Democrats) are OK to look squarely at what they formerly believed was true and reconsider.

Here is an example of a man willing to look at his idol and walk away from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8F15EBUtiY

There are countless more like him.

Posted by: McRib at February 14, 2016 01:53 PM (kwHPo)

450 You Ace folks need to realize...Trump HAS the Republican votes that he's going to get. With the Bush bashing he is going after the Dems and the Inds. He can't lose!

Posted by: jimsword at February 14, 2016 01:58 PM (b7QuC)

451 "Is a patriot but blames Bush for 9/11? "You just don't understand..."" McEnroe

nice rant full of your own straw men, and mostly just an attack on any counter argument, without addressing the arguments. The above is the only point pertinent and it also is wrong.

Trump said 9/11 was under Bush's reign, in response to "he kept us safe". Looking at where we are now, before giving Bush too much blame or credit, we should look at the whole package.

In the summer of 2004 Trump was called not patriotic for saying we would not make the ME democratic, and criticizing Bush. Most have now come around to that in some form, but the defensive praise for Bush (as if that is required for patriotism) is surprisingly still overwhelming in many conservative corners.

Bush is trying to ride in on his family name, Trump rebukes that notion. I'd hoped Walker would rise up, but I'm stuck with Trump taking on the globalists, or maybe Cruz. The willingness to tie Bush support to patriotism is disturbing. Bush had many issues, the war was supposedly a strong suit, but that too looks wrong now. Why "conservatives" would rally around Bush and Iraq failures ... I'm not sure.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 14, 2016 02:00 PM (5Gpe2)

452 Ace I am so glad you called this out and I could not agree with you more. It is a legitimate discussion that we should have as a party about whether we should have invaded Iraq as a matter of national strategy. It is quite another to say that our president lied us into a war on purpose. If I wanted that kind of treasonous insanity I would just vote for Al Gore. Up until last night I had resigned myself to voting for Trump if I had to. Now, there is no way in hell. I'll just stay home if he's the nominee.

Posted by: Lightsey at February 14, 2016 02:06 PM (aGhn9)

453 I like Cruz & am reading his book, it's hard for me to read. I have no strength in my hands & cannot hold a book. To read I have to read only in my kitchen table. I can't hold my iPad either.

I've been skeptical of trump since he entered the race & still have doubts about him. Is he a dem plant? I do not trust him.
Every debate I've seen & there aren't many, made me think less of Donald. He's said he's had sex with so many women, was that while he was married?

Cruz has been my Number 1 since he announced. Because he's a fighter.

Posted by: Carol at February 14, 2016 02:09 PM (sj3Ax)

454 This may be true for the Jeffrey Lords and Sarah Palins who are trying to reconcile Trump with mainstream conservatives. (I fully expect Coulter to say that Trump can imprison the whole Bush family at Guantanamo, As long as he builds the wall) The trumpeters are however a different crowd. I wondered what happened to Rand Paul's numbers. Despite the fact that Donald Trump decidedly does not have a liberty agenda, Trump's ascension to frontrunner coincides with Rand's collapse. Rand's dad was opposing the Iraq War when most Democrats were scared to. Keep in mind, Trump does bring in support from outside the party so I doubt it's going to affect his core support.

I wonder if you're confusing cause with effect. Trump's behavior may not have been un-Trump-like, but that's NOT he's been behaving in the debates. I expect reason he started behaving like a cornered rabid dog, is that Trump's internals show that both Cruz and Bush are catching up to him. I suspect the real reason he skipped the last Iowa debate was the realization that Cruz's ground game was better. In that case they had a storyline lined up where Reagan lost Iowan won NH, but that got tossed aside when Trump could not resist making Carsongate all about him.

Posted by: Fearthe Sam at February 14, 2016 02:13 PM (qdSN8)

455 "Look, Trump has knocked over so many sacred cows that it is getting comical to assert that This Is The Final Straw or You've Really Crossed the Line, Buddy."

I know it's so funny. They really and truly don't get it. And support for Trump is not all just "Let It Burn" either.

I guess, they'd prefer to be wrong 100% of the time rather than face facts.

Not only will this not hurt Trump, he's just gained more Democrat voters.

Does it ever dawn on them that Bush (Obama enabler and Clinton brother from a different mother) and Coleen Bowell (republican conservatives are racist against best prezzie ever Obama) are actually disliked and seen as part of the Oligarchic Uniparty?



Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at February 14, 2016 02:31 PM (6Cre3)

456 Trump has been growing on me but I agree Ace. His comments on W Lying to get us into war were deeply disturbing. He sounded like every leftwing wacko I despised so much at the time for espousing such crap. EVERYONE thought they had WMD (and they did). Remember the hidden plane in the sand? Dont want to dredge up the old tired arguments but really disappointed in Trump.

Posted by: JR at February 14, 2016 02:40 PM (nhSts)

457 "Trump said 9/11 was under Bush's reign, in response to "he kept us safe".

But how can they prove their incorrect point unless they use strawmen or twist and misquote Trump?

It's the Common Core method of argument used by pundits and "real conservatives" like those at NRO.

Trump's finished + Trump's done + misquotes + strawmen + out of context + ad hominems = Flawed and biased political pablum

Regarding Obama's birth certificate, Ace believes Obama. Now that's incredible. Even Obama would laugh his ass off to think someone actually believes him.

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at February 14, 2016 02:46 PM (6Cre3)

458 I think ACE has too much time on his hands. Otherwise he wouldn't take all this space to send out this deep seated conspiratorial assumption. You are loosing it ACE !

Posted by: Edward Cropper at February 14, 2016 02:52 PM (FfyGI)

459
1) Bush was president for eight full months before 9/11 happened. He didn't just open his suitcase.

2) His father was a former president with long term intelligence contacts and Jr. was a Gov with information not known to the public

3) Bush kept all of Clinton's people on

4) Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Clinton were/are bussom buddies

5) Bush arranged for Bin Laden relatives to leave

6) Bush was for non-profiling of muslims. People made to feel bad reporting arabs taking flying lessons but not landing lessons.

7) Bush ROP

Twin Towers previously hit with knowledge they were planning another attempt

9) Jamie Gorlick

10) Open borders was Bush's first priority before 9/11 making it easy for terrorists to gain entry to the US

11) They still won't release the blacked out portions of the 9/11 report. Speculation is because it was the Saudis - Bush Family best friends

12) Trump predicted the second Twin Towers incident and named Bin Laden but Bush, like Clinton, let him continue his plans.

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at February 14, 2016 03:01 PM (6Cre3)

460 It's adorable how you think that anything that Trump could do/say would change the "mind" of even one of his supporters. It's almost like you think that they're paying attention.

Posted by: Brendt Wayne Waters at February 14, 2016 03:12 PM (j0TL8)

461 Response to Ace's "in-depth" "analysis":

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Posted by: No Fat Dudes at February 14, 2016 03:15 PM (vYLwl)

462 W wanted to finish the job his daddy started. Unfortunately, the false information presented that started the Iraq war, caused the death of thousands of American troops for nothing...except to start a chain reaction in the Middle East that made terrorists more powerful than ever. And as a bonus put Barack Hussein in the White House. No more Bushes!

By the way, what unit did Ace fight in?

Posted by: Fat Warrior at February 14, 2016 03:19 PM (vYLwl)

463

13) Sandy Socks Burglar allowed to go free after stealing documents related to 9/11

14) Bush: pre-9/11 Amnesty/open borders
Bush: after 9/11 Amnesty/open borders

W. Bush "see you at the signing" to help campaign for "act of love" Jeb!

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at February 14, 2016 03:35 PM (6Cre3)

464 Laura Ingraham is pretty good on this topic. She says it has risk but that he had to take on the Bush Machine anyway, might as well be on his terms.

She (brilliantly) agrees with me that "conservative press" avoids substantive debate on globalization (where Trump trumps them) and instead attack him as not conservative and off the rails emotionally. Yet now Cruz is out saying with Trump the 2nd amendment could be "written out of the constitution". The wise lawyer said that nonsense.

www.lifezette.com/polizette/

trumps preemptive strike on george w

http://tinyurl.com/zlqb3u8

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 14, 2016 03:53 PM (5Gpe2)

465 Yeah, not a lot of substantive refutation against Trump's positions. Pretty lame defense for W too. Actually, it's pretty sad: what does it say about people or Republican voters that we must be lied to in order to preserve our ego. And frankly, if that's who we are, we deserved W with his phony conservatism and Obama with his revolutionary remake of America. People with such a warped sense of reality so as not to reevaluate their nonsensical positions will pay for that. Fortunately, a number of Republican voters have made the mature choice to say that they were perhaps wrong in their blind trust of the Bushes, and have questioned what they have been told is conservative.

And Ace doesn't really address the fact that Republicans in the early 2000s were desperately trying to protect their tribe and its chieftain. Refuge was sought in FOX News, Rush, and the other pundits. But it was a massive echo chamber of half truths. Many of us despise Karl Rove now, but some forget that he was basically employing sophisticated persuasion and manipulation to keep the Republican electorate supporting an increasingly incompetent Bush administration. Think of it: all of the "liberal" media outlets pilloried Bush for his war advances, Republican voters flee to the safe refuge of talk radio and Fox News, where Rove's messaging of "stay the course," "fight the liberal mainstream media," and "we have to take the fight to the terrorists" blah blah blah.

It took a communist community organizer calling the shots to move this country to the brink for some brainwashed folks to get back to reality.

And I'm not throwing stones - I was one of those who defended Bush to anyone who would listen. I was wrong.

Posted by: McRib at February 14, 2016 04:20 PM (kwHPo)

466 Last night I emailed my political buddies that I would never vote for Trump, along with the quote about WMD that you mention.

Thank you for your words, as they explain my thoughts.

Posted by: Shivas Irons at February 14, 2016 04:22 PM (iYxmo)

467 Many seem to have entirely bought the leftist spin about the iraq war . Sadam used poison gas against both the kurds and marsh arabs . moreover us troops spent years destroying nerve and mustard gas munitions and still left tons undisposed of when obama ran away. Those remaining poison gas munitions are now under the control of ISIS .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html



so W didnt lie and the US won the iraq war absolutely and completely . obama turned that victory into utter defeat by precipitously withdrawing. we will never know if nation building would have worked . there are good reason to think it was doomed but we will never know.

Nation building did work with germany and Japan once upon a time.

Posted by: mr burns at February 14, 2016 05:12 PM (1Arcq)

468 80 by the way, the eagle/turkeys gif isn't an insult. it's just something a friend said to me in an email a while back, as a joke. I'm just sharing the joke. Posted by: ace at February 14, 2016 02:37 AM (dciA+)

This made me laugh. Thread is dead, Jim, but I wanted to add that while no insult taken, we could always make an AoSHQ one that has a pic of a greyhound and says: "it's hard to run with the greyhounds when you're surrounded by corgis."

Posted by: LizLem at February 14, 2016 05:19 PM (ir9Fb)

469 I'm having a hard time understanding Trump supporters. It seems that there is a huge revision to history being made, both concerning GWB and what he had to work with at the time, and Trump's positions on everything and how they have evolved.

I see Trump at a debate and I have a hard time following the scattered logic and stream of conscience.

Still, Trump's supporters only represent 30 percent at most of the R electorate. If he is nominated, the D's will take all in a blood-bath. You think life is "interesting" now, just wait.

The real problem is that the non-Trump R's have too many candidates. The candidates think more highly of themselves than of the country. It seems that if they really thought highly of our great country, they would form an alliance around their best candidate, destroy Trump (politically), then do what they could to destroy the left candidate - whoever they are.

I believe that Rubio is the strongest candidate at this point. But any of them -except Trump- would be much better than any D. If the R's are smart, they will put an end to this circular firing squad while they have a chance, otherwise we end up with Trump vs Sanders (what a disaster for the next 100 years or more that will be).

Posted by: Jay at February 14, 2016 05:27 PM (Fvhcu)

470 467
Nation building did work with germany and Japan once upon a time.
Posted by: mr burns at February 14, 2016 05:12 PM (1Arcq)


Yes, because we forced them to reject their previous ideologies and imposed our system of government on them, when they were lying prostrate in the dirt.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we let them adopt constitutions that enshrined Sharia law. That never should have been acceptable.

Posted by: rickl at February 14, 2016 06:00 PM (sdi6R)

471 I'm pretty sure Ace's head is going to explode when Trump, the Master Persuader, is still in first place after last night's debate. Republicans, myself included, still support George W. Bush largely because his detractors have been no-brain libtards. When we're presented with Donald Trump attacking GWB vs. Yeb! defending him, it's easy to gain new perspective on 43's presidency.

Don't ever forget that most people make up their political minds based on what they're against, not what they're for.

Posted by: Yuri Brezmenov at February 14, 2016 06:05 PM (Xc3qA)

472 And what about the 6 other reasons for entering into the 2nd Iraq War? or do those simply not count?


Posted by: seapea at February 14, 2016 06:15 PM (hAmiW)

473 I think right now, most people are not concerned about re-litigating the Iraq War.

They are concerned with runaway immigration (legal and illegal). Enforcing our sovereignty (related to immigration). Re-negotiating trade deals to stimulate some manufacturing. And yes indeed, stopping or at least slowing Muslim immigration.

Trump is the only one on these issues.

Posted by: GSR at February 14, 2016 06:50 PM (0WdRC)

474 So long as Trump is the only one fighting for the working class and builds the Wall, I really don't care what he has to say about an unpopular president or an unpopular war. My mission in life is not defending things like that.

If a pollster asked me if I had a "favorable" or "unfavorable" view on W I would answer "favorable" BUT that does not mean that there are LOTS of things I disagreed with W about or that I mind one bit that Trump went after W last night. Further, Trump went after W months ago and it didn't hurt him at all.

Some things I disagree with W about:
Pre-9/11: W had 9 months to undo EVERYTHING that Clinton had done -- such as tear down the wall Clinton had built between the CIA and the FBI (W's dad, GHWB, is former CIA so this truly could've been a Day One action, who better knows the CIA than dear ole dad?). This is not "hindsight's 20/20", this is something that really could have been foreseen IF W had taken a "everything Clinton did was bad, undo it all!" approach. We now know that the wall was a huge reason 9/11 happened. Also, the USS Cole attack was just three months prior to W's inaugural so it's not like Osama Bin Laden was laying quietly. NOTHING happened to avenge the Cole or to prevent another! But, pre-9/11, W was too busy getting the Dems to like him after the fallout of "hanging chads".

Post 9/11: I HATED that W became the PR wing of Muslims! He preached that "Islam is a religion of peace" more than anyone! Since I had been studying Islam for years prior to 9/11, this made me sick and angry!

Lead up to Iraq War: W telegraphed his intentions to Saddam. This gave Saddam plenty of time to move the WMDs to another country. But W insisted on a "global coalition" and took far, far too long to do anything. Gee, maybe the world knew what it was doing when it said "no" to W! But, W took months to hobble a group together.

Post-Victory Iraq: W failed to seal the borders and that allowed AQ jihadis to stream across from Syria and kill our soldiers with IEDs. Then, W's ROE were horrific and got soldiers killed and Obama kept them in place which really hurt. Then, W allowed the new Iraq to enshrine Sharia Law into their new constitution. WTH? We spilled blood so that they could oppress people, especially WOMEN?! Then, W insisted that Iraq's artificial borders be kept even tho Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds hated each other. They needed to re-partition the country to achieve peace. Then, W took too long to do the Surge. Then, W left office with Iraq unfinished so that Obama could barf it all up! W should've finished it before Obama took over... at least get a SOFA in place. Obama got more soldiers killed and the abandoned Iraq so that it was all in vain!

So pardon me if I don't give a crap that Trump attacks W. Do I agree that W "lied" about WMDs? No, at least not right now. But do I care that Trump thinks so? HELL to the NO.

Trump's attack on W is actually a political strategy to take the "shine" off of him when he comes to campaign for loathsome Jeb in SC next wk. John Nolte hit the nail on the head with that.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 14, 2016 07:02 PM (xetep)

475 "But, pre-9/11, W was too busy getting the Dems to like him after the fallout of "hanging chads"." PS: by that I mean W allowing Ted Kennedy to craft "No Child Left Behind". W was overly concerned with "healing the country" after his controversial election. W was busy doing school crap instead of doing something about the USS Cole. The Cole was absolutely forgotten about by both Clinton and W because of the election.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 14, 2016 07:05 PM (xetep)

476 Ace types: If Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now.

Mister Ace, may I interest you in this new line of Zawickystan hoop loafers with this balloon mirror ball finish...

Posted by: W.O. Dog Paddler at February 14, 2016 07:21 PM (qukib)

477 Trump was at that time and thereafter a normal consumer of MFM news. A busy man, he did not delve as many here into something other than the MFM for his "news". Once that meme from the asshole 'rats that voted for the war on Iraq took hold, the MFM pounded it into the body politic.

W sat silent, content to letting "history" later reflect the facts. I was so pissed he did not use the bully pulpit to share the facts of
found WMD, stashes, shipping same to Bekka Valley in Syria, we know but a lot if America doesn't know because the MFM is so fucking dishonest. Trump is likely one of those Americans.

Poll Americans today and ask: Did Saddam have WMDs ? Betcha 20 that a vast major, major majority say "Nope!", including many Republicans. Ask them "what do you call a statement that is untrue?" Betcha another 20 that a vast major, major majority say a "Lie!", including many Republicans.

From that mindset, Bush did "lie" in the colloquial sense, i.e., did not tell the truth. No mention of he "knew he was telling a lie" or had the mens re/scienter that the word "lie" has in a technical and full definition of the word. If explained that way, your poll would have hella different results.

I just saying that if Trump is guilty of something, it is not knowing enough facts to say what he said. His facts were the ones shared by so many Americans because of the MFM. I don't think anyone has said he believes that "W knew he was telling a lie". Therein is the lynch pin to this kerfuffle in my humble opinion.




Posted by: oddnot not liking these times at February 14, 2016 07:23 PM (g1MTt)

478 53
"the GOldman Sachs crowd"



The funny thing is that Trumpturfers think this language works.

Posted by: someone at February 14, 2016 02:30 AM (PMBgt)

You think it doesn't work? LOL. If it didn't work, why did Trump win NH? Why does Trump have 42% in SC? 44% nationally? Duh.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 14, 2016 07:43 PM (xetep)

479 Lol @ Jay

Trump does not lose to Sanders. Not going to happen. Trump is also the only able to nullify the media (which will be in the tank for Hillary) and actually set the agenda. Rubio will shit the bed in a general election just like he did against Chris Christie, a guy who does not have the media propaganda behind him like Clinton.

Besides, Rubio's not going anywhere. He will probably get beat by Bush in SC and then his campaign will finally implode after another lackluster affair in Nevada.

For you Rubio people that don't seem to understand, a vote for Rubio is a vote for Bush.

Posted by: McRib at February 14, 2016 08:01 PM (kwHPo)

480 I think half of Trump's supporters are former Ron Paul folks, and they already believed what Trump believes.

I hope you are right. I pray you are right.

Because Trump is dead wrong.

I thought I could support him over Hillary if the time came. I don't think I can now.

I think Trump is a madman. And there is no way to fix that. He is just insane.

Trump is disqualified.

Posted by: petunia at February 14, 2016 08:13 PM (VoCyE)

481 #445 Richard McEnroe
I'd say that's the best post of the day. Unfortunately many of those "marks" who have guzzled Trump's swill are former Ron Paulites who have never known fact from fiction and previous Obama voting liberals that love cult like candidates because.....feelings. They believe the birther, 9/11 truther, anti-Semitic leanings mean they are so much more intelligent than those that don't go along with their little roadshow. When Trump said he could shoot somebody in the street and his followers wouldn't care he was bragging that he will win because his followers are stupid as hell. And on this point I will concede that Trump is right. That his followers think it's funny and still support him just confirms that they are intellectual lightweights. At least those willing to admit that Trump can be an ass but they truly believe he is the only candidate that can crush the establishment are weighing what he says. I think they are dead wrong but they aren't the drones. And I love when the cultists come on and state how Yuuge Trump wins in online polls. Remember when Paul won so many online polls by the sme big numbers and then touted them that Paul was going to smash everyone in the election? Yeah, those Paulbots are still working their "magic."

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 09:39 PM (YwQCs)

482 Trump will never, ever get my vote for anything, anywhere, unless he's running as biggest douchebag of the year. In that case, I'll actively campaign for him.

Posted by: Steve at February 14, 2016 10:08 PM (qkRPB)

483 Trump is a blowhard and bully. As even many of his supporters admit, he's not a conservative. If he wins the nomination, which I still doubt, he'll lose badly to the Democratic candidate, despite how weak and flawed that person is, because a majority of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Trump for ANY public office!

Posted by: Steve from Wisconsin at February 14, 2016 10:16 PM (h3dK/)

484 New poll has Trump at 42% in SC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-south-carolina-still-solidly-for-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Cruz is 22 points behind and is now being seen as a liar. Not good for his preacher persona. His pick-me-so-that-I-can-pick-conservative-justices gambit won't work after more people realize that he pushed hard for John Roberts. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz
Big whiff there, and before you protest that "nobody saw that coming", eh actually some did: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-07-20.html
Cruz will not do any better picking SC nominees than Trump (who admitted that his comment about his sister was a joke -- she's 78 years old). He's named some pretty intriguing judges: http://lawnewz.com/important/donald-trumps-says-hed-consider-these-two-judges-for-u-s-supreme-court/
Who knows? If Cruz realizes that his best course is to run an honest campaign, Trump may pick him for the SC, which is where he really belongs.

Rubio is floundering at 15%. He needed to win for his 3-2-1 strategy to work, but a 5th place NH finish kind-of screwed that up for him.

And Bush is at a paltry 6%. So yeah, aside from some pearl clutchers and Establishment donors, people aren't rushing to defend him from mean old Trump. Bush will eventually outlast Rubio and Kasich as the Establishment candidate, but it won't matter.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom *again* Trump's numbers will probably continue to rise after this debate.

Posted by: McRib at February 14, 2016 10:38 PM (kwHPo)

485 I think our Ewok might be projecting a little

After admittedly serving shxt sandwiches in support of what He believed was the greater good, (the greater goooood - thats for ATC) he cannot deal with a candidate revealing that there was no greater good in supporting the W Iraq position

If I was unable to accept when I was fooled or when I was mistaken in my support for a person or a party then I would still be voting democrat

People change People grow Information comes out
I judge based on what I know today and today Trump is right that the foreign policy demonstrated in Iraq Libya and now Syria are an utter disaster and shouldn't be repeated

Posted by: ginaswo at February 14, 2016 10:45 PM (qxNrP)

486 I guess if all you Trumpers don't have a problem with Trump changing his opinions every 10 seconds and you believe the lies that Trump tells about Cruz changing his positions, then why do you hate Cruz and love Trump? You believe Trump will do what he says at that moment but not Cruz.
Now there's some twisted logic for you.

Posted by: Whippet at February 14, 2016 11:55 PM (YwQCs)

487 Trump is right. Iraq was a disaster. I'm also very suspicious that W knew there was no WMD there. He also knew the yellow cake claim in the SOTU was very suspect. Regardless, it was a blunder and Trump is reminding us so we don't nominate another Bush.

Posted by: dougx at February 15, 2016 01:04 AM (ssrks)

488 To be honest, I just want to punch that orange face to see if the emperor god can actually bleed.

Posted by: Community Organizer at February 15, 2016 01:29 AM (Bjvsz)

489 I'm meh on this one.

Posted by: Dennis G. at February 15, 2016 02:42 AM (2VaeY)

490 "Thought bitches", a quote that I am going to have to use. Good one.

Posted by: darby at February 15, 2016 02:49 AM (Ez3JE)

491 The Iraq War was a bad idea. I think there's widespread if not universal agreement on this now among conservatives.

It's one thing to say Bush and his advisers made the wrong decision based on what they thought was good intelligence, or even that they did so willfully or hastily. But it's another to say that Bush LIED. Ace is right: Trump is ascribing a far greater kind of culpability to Dubya with this new claim. It's not a small difference.

Because if it's true, we should be pressing criminal charges against George Bush. Is that what Trump is advocating? And if he's not, why not?

Posted by: Richard M at February 15, 2016 05:53 AM (PNPlz)

492 McRib,

"Many of us despise Karl Rove now, but some forget that he was basically employing sophisticated persuasion and manipulation to keep the Republican electorate supporting an increasingly incompetent Bush administration."

Perhaps. But I think some folks need to contemplate very hard the possibility that they're merely replacing one sophisticated manipulator for another, one who merely happens to have a more visceral narrative to buy into - and no record in office to defend.

Posted by: Richard M at February 15, 2016 05:59 AM (PNPlz)

493 The Iraq War was all about our nation's sense of fear and panic after 9/11. We were willing to use our military to kill the bad guys and try to stop future 9/11's from happening. That was the bargain we made. But the bargain we made was based on the Desert Storm experience and what we got was Rumsfeld's trimmed down "new" army which did not in any way replicate the army assembled by GHWB in 1990/1991. Wikipedia says we committed 700,000 U.S. troops to Desert Storm and, that 192,000 U.S. troops were committed in the Iraq War. To make matters worse, Rumsy only committed 100,000 to 120,000 initially...the other 70,000 troops that make up the 192,000 number are those soldiers who were added to the Iraq War during the now infamous "Surge".

So, to beat a so-so Iraqi military who had extended their lines well into Kuwait took over half a million troops but to conquer a nation with a bad actor dictator we send 120,000???? Any way we look at it, GWB made many of the right decisions but is also responsible for having made a few too many wrong decisions. At this juncture I am reminded of the movie Animal House when they come home from the road trip and Flounder realizes his big brother's car has been trashed. Otter looks at Flounder standing there blubbering and says "Face it, Flounder...you fucked up!".

And, when you throw in his overlooking the banks making tons of horrible home loans just so he could say we had the highest home ownership percentage in our history, you really have a guy who was at the helm when the USA could barely win a war against a pipsqueak nation and went into what is a technical Depression just so a half a million more (mostly unqualified) people could own a home. GWB should have curtailed what Janet Reno had set loose when she threatened and brow beat the banks into making loans to anyone who could breathe. He instead chose to let it go on unchecked to the extent that it ruined the economy for half a generation and wrought upon us a transformational leftist president who ruined the rest of the country for at least a generation.

Trump was way off base saying GWB lied. But heaping scorn on GWB is no vice in most conservatives eyes.

Posted by: BvG at February 15, 2016 12:18 PM (inmK9)

494 Even the New York Times - after 15 years of lying - finally admitted that Saddam did have WMD"s!

Posted by: Marc at February 17, 2016 02:08 PM (i1nQB)

495 I don't think 'lie' is too strong a word to describe it. March 20,2003:
''My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.''
To me ''to defend the world from grave danger'' is to the Bush family what ''oral sex is not sex'' is to Bill Clinton. After the Cold War where we successfully 'contained' a Soviet Union with the capability to inflict massive destruction on the US and it's allies, making claims that Saddam's Iraq was not only as dangerous, but in fact much worse, is indeed a baldfaced lie.
The push to somehow link Iraq to 9/11 was also a lie. ''disarm Iraq''? The few ''WMDs'' found there (which were not even found or used when Iraqis were grinding up our troops like hamburger) dated back to before the Gulf War!
And ''to free its people''? Tell me how bringing freedom to muslims is to be accomplished?
As is being proven throughout Europe as I write this, where muslims are, not only is freedom not brought, it gets rapidly destroyed.
And considering what muslims in America have done, certainly not freedom, just the opposite.
Or do you LIKE how the TSA treats you?
BTW, since your defending the Bush family, explain why YOU think, and I quote: ''Islam is a religion of peace''
And what did those troops come home to? Jobs taken by H1b's, illegals, no jobs and the housing bubble.
Tell me again just how wonderful the Bush family is.

Posted by: YIH at February 17, 2016 03:48 PM (WhA3u)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0653 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0252 seconds, 504 records returned.
Page size 356 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat